This Report was prepared for Casino Mining
Corporation (CMC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Copper and Gold Corporation (Western) as well as for Western itself by M3 Engineering
& Technology Corporation (M3) in association with Independent Mining Consultants (IMC), Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP), Aurora Geosciences,
and Hemmera.
The purpose of this report is to provide
a feasibility study on the Casino Property. This report conforms to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) National
Instrument (NI) 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The Casino porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum
deposit is located at latitude 62° 44'N and longitude 138° 50'W (NTS map sheet 115J/10), in west central Yukon, in the northwest
trending Dawson Range mountains, 300 km northwest of the territorial capital of Whitehorse.
To the west, Newmont is developing the
Coffee Project. To the north and to the west, White Gold Corp. has a large number of claims and is actively exploring them. Approximately
100 km to the east, Minto Metals Corp. operates the Minto Mine, which produces copper concentrate.
The project is located on Crown land
administered by the Yukon Government and is primarily within the Selkirk First Nation traditional territory. The Tr’ondek Hwechin
traditional territory lies to the north and the proposed access road crosses into Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation traditional territory
to the south. The White River First Nation and Kluane First Nation are also potentially impacted by the project. The Casino Property lies
within the Whitehorse Mining District and consists of 1,136 full and partial Quartz Claims and 55 Placer Claims acquired in accordance
with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. The total area covered by Casino Quartz Claims is 21,276.61 ha. The total area covered by Casino Placer
Claims is 490.32 ha. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC) is the registered owner of all claims, although certain portions of the Casino property
remain subject to royalty agreements. The claims covering the Casino property are discussed further in Section 4 of this document.
Figure 1-1, at the end of this section,
shows the site’s location in Yukon Territory as well as other points of interest relevant to this Report.
The Casino Mine is located in Central
Yukon, roughly 150 km northwest of Carmacks, at approximately N62° 44’ 25”, W138° 49’ 32”. Current site
access is by small aircraft using the existing 760 m airstrip, by winter road and from the Yukon River.
Either road or barge service will provide
early access for construction equipment, camp construction and initial equipment. A barge landing area at Britannia Creek and the Yukon
River is currently in service.
The project plan includes a new airstrip.
The project also plans a new 132 km year-round access road from the end of the Freegold Road, presently extending 70 km northwest of the
village of Carmacks.
The climate at the Casino Project area
can generally be described as continental and cold. Winters are long, cold, and dry, with snow generally on the ground from late September
through mid-May. Summers are short, mild, and wet, with the greatest monthly precipitation falling in July. Average daytime temperature
in winter reaches a maximum of -13 degrees Celsius in January, dropping to -22 degrees Celsius overnight. On average, the daytime temperatures
in July reach a maximum of 20 degrees Celsius, with overnight lows of 7.7 degrees Celsius. The mean annual precipitation for the Casino
Project area is estimated to be 500 mm, with 65% falling as rain and 35% falling as snow.
The first documented work in the present
Casino Property area comprised the working of placer claims on Canadian Creek, recorded in 1911 by J. Britton and C. Brown. A study by
D.D. Cairnes, of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) in 1917, recognized huebnerite (MnWO4) in the heavy-mineral concentrates, and also
that gold and tungsten mineralization was derived from an intrusive complex on Patton Hill. The total placer gold production is unknown,
although from 1980-1985 placer mining yielded 1,615 troy ounces of gold (Au).
The first recorded bedrock mineral discovery
occurred in 1936 when J. Meloy and A. Brown located silver-lead-zinc (Ag-Pb-Zn) veins approximately 3 km south of the Canadian Creek placer
workings. Over the next several years the Bomber and Helicopter vein systems were explored by hand trenches and pits. In 1943, the Helicopter
claims were staked followed by staking of the Bomber and Airport claims in 1947.
Lead-silver mineralization was the focus
of exploration on the property until 1968. Noranda optioned the property in 1948 and Rio Tinto re-optioned the property in 1963. During
this time trenching, mapping, and sampling were conducted.
L. Proctor purchased the claims in 1963
and formed Casino Silver Mines Limited to develop the silver-rich veins. The veins were explored and developed intermittently by underground
and surface workings from 1965 to 1980. In total, 372.5 tonnes of argentiferous galena, assaying 3,689 grams/tonne (g/t) Ag, 17.1 g/t
Au, 48.3% Pb, 5% Zn, 1.5% Cu, and 0.02% bismuth (Bi), were shipped to the Trail, British Columbia smelter.
Based on the recognition of porphyry
copper potential, the Brynelsen Group acquired Casino Silver Mines Limited and, from 1968 to 1973, exploration for a porphyry target was
directed jointly by Brameda, Quintana, and Teck Corporation. Exploration included extensive soil sampling and geophysical surveys and
trenching programs, eventually leading to the discovery of the Casino deposit in 1969. From 1969 to 1973, various parties, including Brameda
Resources, Quintana Minerals and Teck Corporation, completed diamond drilling programs on the property.
Archer, Cathro & Associates (1981)
Ltd. (Archer Cathro) optioned the property in 1991 and assigned the option to Big Creek Resources Ltd. In 1992, a program consisting of
21 HQ holes totaling 4,729 m systematically assessed the gold potential in the core of the deposit for the first time. In 1992, Pacific
Sentinel Gold Corp. (PSG) acquired the property and commenced a major exploration program. The 1993 program included surface mapping and
50,316 m of HQ and NQ-sized drilling in 127 holes. All but one of the 1992 drill holes were deepened in 1993. PSG drilled an additional
108 diamond drill holes totalling 18,085 metres in 1994, completing the delineation drilling commenced in 1993. PSG also performed metallurgical,
geotechnical, and environmental work which was used in a scoping study in 1995. This study envisioned a large-scale open pit mine and
a conventional flotation concentrator that would produce a copper-gold concentrate for sale to Pacific Rim smelters.
First Trimark Resources and CRS Copper
Resources subsequently obtained the property and, using the Pacific Sentinel Gold data, published a Qualifying Report in 2003 to bring
the resource estimate into compliance with National Instrument 43-101 requirements. The two firms combined to form Lumina Copper Corporation
in 2004 and issued an update of the Qualifying Report later that year.
In November 2006, Western Copper Corporation
acquired Lumina Copper Corporation and the Casino Deposit. In the fall of 2011, Western Copper Corporation spun out all other assets except
the Casino Deposit and changed its name to Western Copper and Gold Corporation (Western). Western also created a wholly owned subsidiary,
the “Casino Mining Corporation” (CMC).
In 2007, Western conducted an evaluation
of the Bomber Vein System and the southern slope of Patton Hill by VLF-EM and Horizontal Loop EM geophysical surveying and soil geochemistry.
Environmental baseline studies were also initiated in 2007. In 2008, Western reclaimed the old camp site and constructed a new exploration
camp next to the Casino airstrip. Western drilled a camp water well and two exploration holes totaling 1,163 m, to obtain fresh core samples
for metallurgical and waste characterization tests. Both exploration holes twinned PSG holes to confirm historical Cu, Mo, and Au grades.
Later that year, M3 Engineering produced a pre-feasibility study for Western.
In 2009, Western completed 22.5 km of
Direct Current Resistivity and Induced Polarization (DC/IP) surveying and Magnetotelluric Tensor Resistivity (MT) surveying using the
“Titan” system of Quantec Geosciences Ltd. The company also drilled 10,943 m in 37 diamond drill holes, of which 27 were infill
holes along the north slope of Patton Hill designed to convert inferred resource and non-defined material to the measured and indicated
categories. Drilling identified supergene Cu-Mo mineralization in this area. The remaining 10 holes, totaling 4,327 m, were drilled to
test geophysical targets.
In 2010, infill and delineation drilling
continued, with most of the drilling done to the north and west of the deposit. Drilling also defined hypogene mineralization at the southern
end of the deposit. The company also drilled a series of geotechnical holes at the proposed tailings embankment area and within the pit,
and several holes for hydrogeological studies. The geotechnical drilling continued in 2011 (41 holes, 3,163 m) and 2012 (6 holes, 228
m). This work culminated in the publishing of a pre-feasibility study in 2011 and a feasibility study in 2013.
In 2019, Western carried out a program
of infill drilling, comprising 13,590 m in 72 holes. This program was designed to upgrade mineralization in the inferred resource category
located along the margin of the deposit to the indicated category.
In 2020, CMC completed a diamond drilling
program comprising 12,007.54 m in 49 holes, targeting three main areas: the Gold, Northern Porphyry and Casino West zones. Drilling at
the Gold Zone was designed to test for higher grade mineralization along the south and west boundaries of the deposit. Northern Porphyry
zone drilling targeted potential northern extensions of the deposit. Drilling at the Casino West zone was designed to test for continuation
of the deposit along the south flank of Canadian Creek.
In 2021, CMC completed a diamond drilling
program comprising 6,074.97 m in 22 holes. Of these, 16, comprising 5 resource confirmation holes, 3 metallurgical testing holes,
and 8 for geotechnical analysis were drilled within the Casino resource boundaries. An additional six exploration holes were drilled outside
of the deposit resource area, and seven short geotechnical holes were drilled in the proposed heap leach, tailings management facility
and processing facility areas.
In July 2021 Western completed a Preliminary
Economic Assessment (PEA) report, incorporating data from drilling from 1992 through 2019. The PEA recommended advancement to a Feasibility
Study to determine mineral reserves for the deposit.
In mid-2019, Western acquired the Canadian
Creek property, adjacent to the west of the Casino property, from Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd., leading to the issuance of a new Mineral
Resource Statement in late 2020. Exploration on the Canadian Creek property dates from 1992 when Archer Cathro staked the Ana Claims.
In 1993, Eastfield Resources Ltd. acquired these claims, expanded the Ana Claim block, and explored the expanded property by soil geochemical
sampling, trenching, and drilling, (Johnston, 2018). This work was directed towards exploration for additional porphyry deposits. The
1993 program was followed by extensive field programs in 1996, 1997 and 1999, comprising Induced Polarization (IP) surveying, road construction,
and trenching on the Ana, Koffee, Maya and Ice claims. In 2000, Eastfield on the Ana undertook another drill campaign, Koffee Bowl, and
the newly acquired Casino “B” claims immediately east of the Casino deposit. The Casino “B” holes confirmed the
presence of auriferous mineralization discovered in 1994 by PSG. Modest exploration programs were conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005, mostly
over the Casino “B” area. In 2007, a five-hole core drill program at Casino “B” targeted gold and copper soil
anomalies and ground magnetic “high” features.
In 2009, following discovery of gold
on Underworld Resources’ nearby White Gold property, a major exploration program at Canadian Creek targeted gold potential outside
of previous areas of porphyry copper exploration. Soil surveying revealed areas returning > 15 ppb Au, associated with anomalous As,
Bi, and Sb (antimony) values, extending more than four kilometers ENE from the Casino deposit. The IP surveys showed numerous strong chargeability
highs, many coinciding with the gold-in-soil anomalies, which were subsequently tested with 10 core holes. The holes intersected clay-altered
structures with sheeted pyrite veins, and narrow, structurally controlled clay-altered structures with pyrite and quartz-carbonate veins.
With few exceptions gold grades were < 1 gpt, and widths were less than 3 m.
In 2011, additional soil sampling and
ground geophysical surveying and trenching were completed. The soil sampling completed coverage of the entire Canadian Creek property,
whereas a limited-extent IP survey identified two zones of > 20 mv/V of chargeability. The trenching program identified several areas
with anomalous gold values, including 2,890 ppb and 4,400 ppb Au.
In 2016, Cariboo Rose, which had by then
acquired the property from Eastfield, completed a modest program of trenching, prospecting, and in-fill soil sampling. Trenching work
at the Ana portion of the Canadian Creek property returned locally anomalous Au, widely spread anomalous As, Bi and Sb, and locally high
Ag values, generally confined to narrow structures.
Cariboo Rose’s 2017 exploration
program comprised surface work at the Kana and Malt West gold targets and a reverse circulation (RC) drill program that tested a variety
of gold targets across the property. A total of 2,151.27 m of RC drilling in 24 holes was completed. This work confirmed gold and silver
mineralization to be limited to structures less than 3 m wide, rarely traceable over more than 100 m.
The geological setting of the Casino
deposit is typical of many porphyry copper deposits. The deposit is centered on an Upper Cretaceous-age (72-74 Ma), east-west elongated
porphyry stock called the Patton Porphyry, which intrudes mid-Cretaceous granitoids of the Dawson Range Batholith and Paleozoic schists
and gneisses of the Wolverine Creek suite of the Yukon Tanana Terrane (YTT). Intrusion of the Patton Porphyry caused brecciation of both
the earlier intrusive rocks and surrounding country rocks along the northern, southern, and eastern contacts of the stock. Brecciation
is best developed in the eastern end of the stock where the brecciated zone is up to 400 m wide in plan view. To the west, along the north
and south contacts, the breccias narrow gradually to less than 100 m. The overall dimensions of the intrusive complex are approximately
1.8 by 1.0 km.
The main body of the Patton Porphyry
is a relatively small, mineralized stock measuring approximately 300 m by 800 m, surrounded by a potassically-altered intrusion breccia
in contact with rocks of the Dawson Range Batholith. Elsewhere, the Patton Porphyry forms discontinuous dykes ranging from less than one
to tens of metres in width, cutting both the Patton Porphyry Plug and the Dawson Range Batholith. The overall composition of the Patton
Porphyry is rhyodacite, with phenocrysts of a dacitic composition within a quartz latite matrix. The porphyry commonly includes abundant
distinct phenocrysts of plagioclase and lesser phenocrysts of biotite, hornblende, quartz, and opaque minerals.
The Intrusion Breccia comprises granodiorite,
diorite, and fragments of Paleozoic meta-igneous and metasedimentary rocks, in a fine-grained Patton Porphyry matrix. It may have formed
along the margins, in part by the stoping of blocks of wall rock. An abundance of Dawson Range granitoid inclusions occurs prominently
at the southern contact of the main plug, whereas abundances of Wolverine Creek metamorphic rocks increase along the northern contact,
and bleached diorite fragment abundance increases along the eastern contact of the main plug. Strong potassic and phyllic alteration locally
destroys primary textures.
Primary copper, gold and molybdenum mineralization
was deposited from hydrothermal fluids that exploited the contact breccias and fractured wall rocks. Higher grades occur in the breccias
and gradually decrease outbound from the contact zone, both towards the centre of the stock and outward into the granitoids and schists.
Several metallogenic settings were identified as follows:
The Casino deposit is best classified
as a Calc-Alkalic Porphyry type deposit associated with a tonalite intrusive stock. Primary Cu, Au and Mo mineralization was deposited
from hydrothermal fluids that exploited the contact breccias and fractured wall rocks. Higher Cu-Au grades occur in the breccias and gradually
decrease outwards away from the contact zone both towards the centre of the stock and outward into the granitoids and schists. A general
zoning of the primary sulphides occurs, with chalcopyrite and molybdenite occurring in the central tonalite and breccias, grading outward
into pyrite-dominated mineralization in the surrounding granitoids and schists. Alteration accompanying the sulphide mineralization comprises
an earlier phase of potassic (K) alteration and a later overprinting of phyllic alteration. The potassic alteration typically comprises
secondary biotite and K-feldspar as pervasive replacement and veins. Quartz stockwork zones and anhydrite veinlets also occur. Phyllic
alteration consists of sericite and vein and replacement-style silicification.
The Casino deposit is unusual amongst
Canadian porphyry copper deposits in having a well-developed enriched blanket of secondary copper mineralization similar to that found
in deposits in Chile and the southwestern United States, such as the Escondida and Morenci deposits. Unlike other Canadian porphyry deposits,
the Casino deposit’s enriched copper blanket was not eroded by glacial action. At Casino, weathering during the Tertiary Period
leached the copper from the upper 70 m of the deposit, forming the leached cap, and re-deposited it lower in the deposit, forming the
supergene enrichment zones. This created a layer-like sequence consisting of an upper leached zone up to 70 m thick, where all sulphide
minerals have been oxidized and copper removed, resulting in a bleached, limonitic leached cap containing residual gold. Beneath the leached
cap is a zone up to 100 m thick of secondary copper sulphide mineralization, primarily chalcocite and minor covellite, and including thin,
discontinuous units of supergene copper oxide mineralization directly underlying the leached cap. The copper grades of the enriched, blanket-like
zone can be up to twice that of the underlying unweathered hypogene zone of primary copper mineralization, the latter comprising pyrite,
chalcopyrite and lesser molybdenite. The hypogene copper mineralization is persistent at depth, extending more than 600 m below surface,
and beyond the deepest drill holes.
In 2009, Quantec Geoscience Limited of
Toronto, Ontario performed Titan-24 DC/IP surveying, as well as an MT survey over the entire grid. MT surveys provide high resolution
and deep penetration (to 1 km), and the Titan DC/IP survey provides reasonable depth coverage to 750 m.
In 2010, all of Pacific Sentinel’s
historic drill core stored at the Casino Property was re-logged to provide data for the new lithological and alteration models.
In 2011 Western focused on geotechnical,
metallurgical and baseline environmental studies, but also drilled several exploration holes, prior to changing its name to Western Copper
and Gold Corp (Western), and creating its wholly owned subsidiary, Casino Mining Corporation (CMC) late that year. In 2011, the program
involved 41 drill holes for a total of 3,163.26 m. In 2012, CMC continued with the geotechnical and metallurgical drilling; six holes
(228.07 m) were drilled for metallurgical sampling.
During the 2019 field season, Western
focused on exploration drilling for the primary purpose of updating the resource base of the Casino Project. A total of 13,594.63 m in
72 holes were drilled.
During the 2020 field season, Western
completed a diamond drilling program of 12,008 m in 49 core holes. The program focused on identification of high-grade gold intercepts
in the “Gold Zone,” as well as expansion of the main deposit to the north and west. Results are included in this Feasibility
Study.
During the 2021 field season, a total
of 6,074.97 metres in 22 core holes was completed. The assay values were not used in the determination of the updated resource described
in this report. Four categories of diamond drilling were employed, as follows:
Resource Confirmation Drilling: 5 holes
for 1,483 m.
Metallurgical Drilling: 3 holes for
1,001 m.
Geotechnical Drilling (Deposit area):
8 holes for 1,957 m.
Exploration Drilling: 6 holes for
1,634 m.
The 2021 program also included the drilling
of seven geotechnical holes testing ground conditions at the proposed Tailings Management Facility, Heap Leach facility and Mineral Processing
site. Roughly 40% of core from 1992 to 2012, all of the 2021 core, and much of the 2020 core underwent scanning by the GeologicAl instrument
of Enersoft Inc.
Also in 2021, an extensive B-horizon
soil sampling program covering areas north, east, and south of the Casino deposit was completed, leading to onsite identification from
on-site XRF results of three targets, which were subsequently drilled. Three further geochemical targets were identified from lab assay
results.
Exploration on the property over its
history included prospecting, geological mapping, multi-element soil geochemistry, magnetic and IP surveys, trenching and drilling. Targeting
of early drilling on the Casino Deposit was based mainly on coincident Cu-Mo soil anomalies. Since 1993, with the exception of a Titan
TM Survey, exploration centered on the Casino deposit comprised drilling on a grid pattern using a core drill with NQ and NTW widths,
with a smaller number of holes drilled with HQ diameter core. The 2021 drilling program utilized PQ-sized coring gear for the metallurgical
holes, and HTW gear for the resource confirmation, geotechnical and exploration holes. These were reduced to NTW-sized core when drilling
conditions became challenging.
On the recently acquired Canadian Creek
Property, exploration to 2017 comprised grid soil, ground magnetic and IP surveys to generate trenching and drilling targets. Initially
the focus was to locate porphyry copper mineralization. After 2016, the focus changed to exploration for gold mineralization similar
to that discovered at nearby Coffee Creek.
Soil sampling west of the Casino Deposit
was done from the mid-1990s through to 2011. The soil results show a coincident Cu-Au anomaly at the 50 ppm Cu and 15 ppb Au threshold
levels respectively, extending westward for approximately 3 km from the Casino Deposit. This anomaly has been tested by 16 core holes.
Ground magnetic surveys with a line spacing
of 100 m were undertaken over the Canadian Creek property in 2011 and in 2017. IP surveys were carried out in 1993, 1996, 2009 and 2011.
The surveys in the 1990s used a pole-dipole array with an a-spacing of 75 m and an n 1 to 4 depth profile. The 2009 survey was a pole-dipole
survey using an a-spacing of 25 m and an n 1 to 6 depth profile, and the 2011 pole dipole survey used an a-spacing of 25 m and an n 1
to 8 depth profile. In general, the surveys used small “n” spacings and have a limited depth profile. The surveys identified
a number of high chargeability anomalies which remain to be tested.
The 2021 B-horizon soil sampling was
conducted using a 200-metre station spacing and a 200-metre line spacing, resulting in evenly spaced sample locations in all cardinal
directions throughout the surveyed area.
Drilling procedures for resource confirmation
and exploration holes were the same as for 2020 drilling, utilizing HTW-sized equipment. Geotechnical drilling in the deposit area utilized
HTW-sized split tube (“Triple-tube”) coring steel. The metallurgical holes utilized PQ-sized equipment for a more representative
sample for testing.
The 2021 program also included re-analysis
of much of the historic core, as well as 2020 and 2021 core, by the heli-portable GeologicAl unit of Enersoft Inc. The unit performed
hyperspectral, LiDAR, XRF and high-resolution photography on drill core. Roughly 40% of the 1992 – 2012 core, all of the 2021 and
some of the 2020 core underwent analysis by the GeologicAl unit.
The Mineral Resource for the Casino Project
includes Mineral Resources amenable to milling and flotation concentration methods (mill material) and Mineral Resource amenable to heap-leach
recovery methods (leach material). Also, the Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of the Mineral Reserve presented in the next section.
Table 1-1 presents the Mineral Resource for mill material. Mill material includes the supergene oxide (SOX), supergene sulphide (SUS),
and hypogene sulphide (HYP) mineral zones. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources amount to 2.26 billion tonnes at 0.15% total
copper, 0.18 g/t gold, 0.016% molybdenum, and 1.4 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 7.45 billion pounds of copper, 12.9 million
ounces gold, 791.2 million pounds of moly and 103.1 million ounces of silver. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional 1.37 billion
tonnes at 0.10% total copper, 0.14 g/t gold, 0.009% moly and 1.1 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 3.03 billion pounds of copper,
6.1 million ounces of gold, 286.0 million pounds moly and 50.5 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource in mill material.
Table 1-2 presents the Mineral Resource
for leach material. Leach material is oxide dominant leach cap (CAP or LC) mineralization. The emphasis of leaching is the recovery of
gold in the leach cap. Copper grades in the leach cap are low, but it is expected some metal will be recovered. Measured and Indicated
Mineral Resources amount to 231.7 million tonnes at 0.04% total copper, 0.25 g/t gold and 1.9 g/t silver and contained metal amounts
to 196.9 million pounds of copper, 1.88 million ounces gold and 14.1 million ounces of silver. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional
40.9 million tonnes at 0.05% total copper, 0.20 g/t gold and 1.4 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 46.9 million pounds of copper,
270,000 ounces of gold and 1.9 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource in leach material.
Table 1-3 presents the Mineral Resource
for combined mill and leach material for copper, gold, and silver. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources amount to 2.49 billion tonnes
at 0.14% total copper, 0.18 g/t gold, and 1.5 g/t silver. Contained metal amounts to 7.64 billion pounds copper, 14.8 million ounces gold,
and 117.2 million ounces of silver for Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional 1.41 billion
tonnes at 0.10% total copper, 0.14 g/t gold and 1.2 g/t silver. Contained metal amounts to 3.08 billion pounds of copper, 6.3 million
ounces of gold and 52.3 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource. The Mineral Resource for molybdenum is as shown with
mill material since it will not be recovered for leach material.
The Mineral Resources are based on a
block model developed by IMC during December 2021. This updated model incorporated the 2020 Western drilling and updated geologic models.
The Measured, Indicated, and Inferred
Mineral Resources reported herein are contained within a floating cone pit shell to demonstrate “reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction” to meet the definition of Mineral Resources in NI 43-101.
NSR (C$/t) = $15.21 x copper (%)
+ $50.51 x gold (g/t) + $0.210 x silver (g/t), based on copper recovery of 18%, gold recovery of 80%, and silver recovery of 26%.
NSR (C$/t) = $73.81 x copper (%)
+ $41.16 x gold (g/t) + $213.78 x moly (%) + $0.386 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 92.2% copper, 66% gold, 50% silver, and 78.6%
molybdenum.
NSR (C$/t) = $80.06 x recoverable
copper (%) + $43.03 x gold (g/t) + $142.11 x moly (%) + $0.464 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 69% gold, 60% silver, and 52.3%
molybdenum. Recoverable copper = 0.94 x (total copper – soluble copper).
Table 1-4 presents the Mineral Reserve
estimate for the Casino Project. It can be seen that there are Mineral Reserves amenable to milling and Mineral Reserves amenable to heap
leaching. The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves amenable to milling amount to 1.22 billion tonnes at 0.19% total copper, 0.22 g/t gold,
0.021% molybdenum and 1.7 g/t silver. The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve amenable to heap leaching amounts to 209.6 million
tonnes at 0.26 g/t gold, 0.036% copper and 1.9 g/t silver. The effective date of this Mineral Reserve estimate is June 13, 2022.
The low-grade stockpile portion of the Mineral Reserve is economic, but lower grade, material that will be stockpiled and processed at
the end of open-pit operations. The Mineral Reserve estimate is also based on an exchange rate of US$ 0.80 = C$ 1.00." or if you
prefer, C$ 1.25 = US$ 1.00.
The Mineral Reserve estimate is based
on an open pit mine plan and mine production schedule developed by IMC. The Mineral Reserve estimate is based on commodity prices of US$
3.25 per pound copper, US$1550 per ounce gold, US$ 12.00 per pound molybdenum and US$22.00 per ounce silver. Measured Mineral Resource
in the mine production schedule was converted to Proven Mineral Reserve and Indicated Mineral Resource in the schedule was converted to
Probable Mineral Reserve.
The Mineral Reserves are classified in
accordance with the “CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” adopted by the CIM Council
(as amended, the “CIM Definition Standards”) in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. Mineral Reserve estimates reflect
the reasonable expectation that all necessary permits and approvals will be obtained and maintained. The project is in a jurisdiction
friendly to mining.
IMC does not believe that there are significant
risks to the Mineral Reserve estimate based on metallurgical or infrastructure factors or environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation,
socio-economic, marketing, or political factors. There has been a significant amount of metallurgical testing, however recoveries lower
than forecast would result in loss of revenue for the project. Other risks to the Mineral Reserve estimate are related to economic parameters
such as prices lower than forecast or costs higher than the current estimates. The impact of these is modeled in the sensitivity study
with the economic analysis in Section 22.
All of the mineralization comprised in
the Mineral Reserve estimate with respect to the Casino Project is contained on mineral titles controlled by Western Copper and Gold.
This Feasibility Study (FS) is based
on a conventional open pit mine plan. Mine operations will consist of drilling large diameter blast holes (31 cm), blasting with a bulk
emulsion, and loading into large off-road trucks with cable shovels and a hydraulic shovel. Mineral reserves amenable to processing will
be delivered to the primary crusher or various stockpiles. Waste rock will be placed inside the limits of the tailings management facility
(TMF). There will be a fleet of track dozers, rubber-tired dozers, motor graders and water trucks to maintain the working areas of the
pit, stockpiles, and haul roads.
Based on the mining plan developed for
this study, the commercial life of the project is 27 years after an approximate 3-year pre-production period. Total mill ore is 1.22 billion
tonnes at 0.189% copper, 0.217 g/t gold, 0.0213% molybdenum, and 1.66 g/t silver. Only measured and indicated mineral resource is included
in the mine production schedule and converted to proven and probable mineral reserve.
In addition to the potential mill ore,
there is mineral reserve mined from the leach cap zone that is amenable to processing by crushing and heap leaching. This amounts to 209.6
million tonnes at 0.265 g/t gold, 1.95 g/t silver, and 0.036% total copper.
Total waste in the mine plan amounts
to 611.3 million tonnes. The waste material by material type is as follows:
The overburden is placed in the overburden
stockpile in Canadian Creek, north of the pit. The remaining waste is disposed in the tailing management facility in three facilities
for mine waste: 1) the North Waste area which contains 248.4 million tonnes, 2) the Divider Dam which contains 134.4 million tonnes, and
3) the West Waste storage area which contains 164.6 million tonnes. About 5 million tonnes of mine waste will be used in the Starter Dam
for the TMF embankment. The material will be placed by trucks and dozers.
Flotation testing by ALS Metallurgy from
2008 to 2012 indicated that copper concentrate grades of 28% copper could be routinely achieved at good copper recoveries with a primary
grind size of 80% passing 200 µm and a regrind of 80% passing 25 µm. Gold and silver will be recovered with the copper concentrate.
Molybdenum will be recovered to a molybdenum concentrate in a separate flotation circuit.
The average metal recoveries expected
from mill processing following the planned mill feed schedule are noted below:
Column leach test work completed in 2021
by SGS Canada on the oxide cap ore crushed to minus 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) showed that good recoveries of gold and acceptable cyanide consumptions
could be obtained by integrating the cyanide heap leach with the SART process. Metallurgical results obtained in 2021 on samples tested
by SGS Canada indicated that gold recovery from the heap leach could be increased by crushing the ore going to the heap leach to minus
1.9 cm (3/8 inch). Hydrodynamic characterization testing indicated that agglomeration will not be required with the finer crush size.
A three-stage crushing circuit has been incorporated into this feasibility study.
A mine plan was developed to supply mill
ore to a conventional copper sulphide flotation plant with the capacity to process mill ore at a nominal rate of 120,000 t/d, or 43.8
million tonnes per year (Mt/y). Actual annual throughput will vary depending on the mill ore hardness encountered during the period. The
mine is scheduled to operate two 12 hour shifts per day, 365 days per year.
Both sulphide copper-molybdenum mill
ore and oxide gold leach ore will be processed. Copper-molybdenum mill ore will be transported from the mine to the concentrator facility
and oxide gold leach ore will be transported from the mine to a crushing facility ahead of a heap leaching and gold recovery facility.
Copper-molybdenum mill ore will be processed
by crushing, grinding, and flotation to produce copper and molybdenum sulphide mineral concentrates. Copper concentrate will be loaded
into highway haul trucks and transported to the Port of Skagway for ocean shipment to market. Molybdenum concentrate will be bagged and
loaded onto highway haul trucks for shipment to market.
Oxide gold ore will be crushed and leached
with an aqueous leach solution. Gold in the enriched (or pregnant) leach solution will be recovered using carbon absorption technology
to produce gold doré bars. The enriched leach solution will also be treated to recover copper and cyanide and produce a copper
sulphide precipitate. The copper sulphide precipitate will be bagged and loaded onto highway haul trucks for shipment to market. Recovery
methods are discussed more in depth in Section 17.
The region is serviced by paved all-weather
roads connecting the towns of Carmacks and Whitehorse in the Yukon with the Port of Skagway Alaska. With the completion of the 132 km
Casino access road, the project will have an all-weather access route through Carmacks to Whitehorse (approx. 380 km) and to the Port
of Skagway (550 km). The Port of Skagway has existing facilities to store and load-out concentrates as well as facilities to receive
bulk commodity shipments, fuels, and connection to the Alaska Marine Highway. The Port of Skagway is developing plans to expand these
facilities to better serve the expanding mining activity in the Yukon and Alaska.
The City of Whitehorse is the government,
financial and commercial hub of the Yukon with numerous business and service entities to support the project and represents a major resource
to staff the project. Whitehorse has an international airport and provides commercial passenger and freight services for the region.
A new airstrip will be constructed at
the mine to accommodate appropriately sized aircraft. The existing airstrip will be razed in preparation for grading for process facilities.
The main fresh water supply will be supplied
from the Yukon River. The water will be collected in a riverbank caisson and radial well system (Ranney Well) and pumped through an above-ground
insulated 762 mm (30”) diameter by 17.4 km long pipeline with four pump stations to the 22,000 m3 capacity freshwater
pond near the concentrator. The design capacity of the freshwater collection and transfer system will be 2,500 m3/hr with
a maximum of 3,650 m3/hr with all pumps running.
LNG will be transported to the site from
Fort Nelson, British Columbia via tanker trucks and stored on-site in a large 10,000 m3 site-fabricated storage tank to provide
fuel for the power plant. An LNG receiving station is provided to unload the LNG tankers and transfer the LNG into the storage facility.
An LNG vaporization facility is provided to convert the LNG into gas at a suitable supply pressure to operate the power generation equipment.
Electrical power generation for the Project
will be developed in two phases. An initial power plant designated the Supplementary Power Plant will be constructed in the vicinity of
the main workforce housing complex to provide power to the camp, for construction activities, and to oxide crushing, conveying and heap
leach facilities that go into operation before the main power plant is operational.
The Supplementary Power Plant will consist
of three 2,250-kilowatt (kW) diesel internal combustion engines (ICE). Two of the generators will remain at the Workforce Housing complex
and the third will be relocated to the Sand Cyclone (Area 640) facility to provide standby/emergency power to this area after the concentrator
start-up.
A Main Power Plant will be constructed
at the Casino main mill and concentrator complex to supply the electrical energy required for operations throughout the mine site. The
primary electrical power generation will be provided by three Gas Turbine driven generators (two Single Fuel Gas Turbines, one Dual Fuel
Gas Turbine) and a steam generator, operating in combined cycle mode (CCGT) with a total installed capacity of approximately 200 megawatts
(MW). The nominal running load to the mine and concentrator complex is about 130 MW. Three diesel ICE driven generators will provide
another 6.75 MW of power for black start capability, emergency power, and to complement the gas turbine generation when required. The
gas turbines will be fueled by natural gas (supplied as liquefied natural gas, or LNG). One of the three will have Dual Fuel capabilities
- LNG and Diesel.
The 34.5 kV distribution systems will
radiate from a 34.5 kV switchgear line-up with feeders to the SAG mill, Ball Mill No. #1, Ball Mill No. #2, and feeders to the mill and
flotation areas in cable tray using insulated copper conductors. Overhead line feeder circuits with aluminum conductor steel reinforced
(ACSR) will be provided for the tailings reclaim water, fresh water from the Yukon River, crushing/conveying and SART/ADR, camp site and
two feeders to the pit loop.
Electric power utilization voltages will
be 4,160 volts for motors 300 horsepower (hp) and above, 575 volts for three-phase motors 250 hp and below. For lighting, small loads
and building services 600/347 or 208/120 volts will be the utilization voltage.
A single Tailings Management Facility
(TMF) will be constructed south of the open pit for storage of tailings and potentially reactive waste rock generated from mining. The
TMF will store approximately 805 Mt of tailings and 615 Mt of potentially reactive waste rock and overburden materials. The TMF embankments
will be constructed using a combination of local borrow and cyclone underflow sand produced from Non-Acid Generating (NAG) tailings. A
total of approximately 491 Mt of NAG tailings will be used for dam construction. The TMF will be constructed with centerline raises of
the dam, to a final crest elevation of El. 1000 m. See Figure 18-6 that provides a schematic of the dam dimensions.
A Heap Leach Facility (HLF) will be constructed
on a southeast facing hill-slope, approximately one kilometer south of the Open Pit. The HLF operations will commence during pre-production
stripping of the Open Pit. The HLF has a design capacity of 210 million tonnes (Mt) of leach cap material. The heap leach pad will be
stacked with ore and leached from Year -2 through Year 22 of mine operations. The ore will be stacked at a nominal rate of approximately
9.1 Mt per year.
The ore will be stacked on a prepared
pad, with a composite liner system to maximize leachate collection and minimize seepage losses. A double composite liner system will be
constructed within the lower portion of the HLF and this area will function as an in-heap water management pond. The double liner system
will include a leak detection and recovery system (LDRS) to intercept and collect potential leakage through the upper liner. The in-heap
water management pond area will be impounded by a confining embankment, constructed from mine waste rock material.
The HLF will be developed in stages by
loading in successive lifts, upslope from the base platform developed within the in-heap water management pond area, behind the confining
embankment. The HLF will be developed by stacking ore in eight-meter lifts to establish a final overall slope of 2.5H:1V. Intermittent
wider benches will be constructed to limit the vertical height of the HLF to a maximum of approximately 120 m.
Total initial capital investment in the
Project is estimated to be $3.62 billion, which represents the total direct and indirect cost for the complete development of the Project,
including associated infrastructure and power plant. Table 1-5 shows how the initial capital is distributed between the various components,
including $751 million for sustaining costs.
Operating costs for the milling operation
were calculated per tonne of ore processed through the mill over the life of mine as shown in Table 1-6.
Heap leach operating costs were calculated
per tonne of ore processed through the heap leach over the life of the heap leach as shown in Table 1-7.
Mining costs were calculated to average
$2.30 per tonne of material moved and $3.65 per tonne of ore.
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 1-8: Mining Operating Costs
| Category |
(C$/t) |
| Cost per tonne material (material moved) |
$2.30 |
| Cost per tonne mill feed (mill + heap material) |
$3.65 |
| Cost per tonne mill feed |
$4.28 |
The combined mining and milling costs
are $11.16 per tonne ore milled for the life of mine, which compares favorably to the life-of-mine net smelter return of $29.08 per tonne
at Base Case metal prices.
This economic analysis is based on proven
and probable mineral reserves. The Study indicates that the potential economic returns from the Project justify its further development
and securing the required permits and licenses for operation. The financial results of the Study were developed under commodity prices
that were based on analyst projections of long-term metal prices and C$:US$ exchange rate (“Base Case” prices). Note that
an exchange rate of C$:US$ of 0.80 was used for the capital cost estimation for all metal price scenarios. Table 1-9 summarizes the financial
results:
Table 1-9: Financial Results Summary
| Category and Units |
Base Case |
| Copper (US$/lb) |
US$3.60 |
| Molybdenum (US$/lb) |
US$14.00 |
| Gold (US$/oz) |
US$1,700 |
| Silver (US$/oz) |
US$22.00 |
| Exchange Rate (C$:US$) |
0.80 |
| |
|
| NPV pre-tax (5% discount, C$M) |
$5,768 |
| NPV pre-tax (8% discount, C$M) |
$3,473 |
| IRR pre-tax (100% equity) |
21.2% |
| |
|
| NPV after-tax (5% discount, C$M) |
$4,059 |
| NPV after-tax (8% discount, C$M) |
$2,334 |
| IRR after-tax (100% equity) |
18.1% |
| |
|
| LOM pre-tax free cash flow (C$M) |
$13,713 |
| LOM after-tax free cash flow (C$M) |
$10,019 |
| |
|
| Payback period (years) |
3.3 |
| Net Smelter Return (C$/t milled) |
$29.08 |
| Copper Cash Cost* (C$/lb) |
($1.00) |
| *C1
cash costs, net of by-product credits. |
|
The financial results of the Study are
significantly influenced by copper and gold prices, as shown in Table 1-10.
 | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 17 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 1-10: Copper and Gold Price
Sensitivity
| Copper Price (US$/lb)* |
$3.00 |
$3.50 |
$3.60 |
$4.00 |
$4.50 |
$5.00 |
| NPV pre-tax (8%) (C$ 000s) |
$2,547,382 |
$3,318,938 |
$3,473,249 |
$4,090,494 |
$4,862,051 |
$5,633,607 |
| NPV after-tax (8%) (C$ 000s) |
$1,654,597 |
$2,221,387 |
$2,334,396 |
$2,786,432 |
$3,351,478 |
$3,916,523 |
| IRR pre-tax |
18.2% |
20.7% |
21.2% |
23.0% |
25.3% |
27.4% |
| IRR after-tax |
15.5% |
17.7% |
18.1% |
19.7% |
21.6% |
23.5% |
| Payback (years) |
3.8 |
3.4 |
3.3 |
3.0 |
2.8 |
2.6 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gold Price (US$/oz)* |
$1,300 |
$1,500 |
$1,700 |
$1,850 |
$2,050 |
$2,200 |
| NPV pre-tax (8%) (C$ 000s) |
$2,411,886 |
$2,942,568 |
$3,473,249 |
$3,871,260 |
$4,401,942 |
$4,799,953 |
| NPV after-tax (8%) (C$ 000s) |
$1,551,049 |
$1,944,312 |
$2,334,396 |
$2,626,958 |
$3,017,042 |
$3,309,604 |
| IRR pre-tax |
17.5% |
19.4% |
21.2% |
22.5% |
24.2% |
25.5% |
| IRR after-tax |
14.9% |
16.5% |
18.1% |
19.2% |
20.7% |
21.8% |
| Payback (years) |
4.0 |
3.6 |
3.3 |
3.1 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
*All other metal prices except those
noted are the same as the Base Case.
Several quartz mineral claim blocks and
placer claims registered to other owners are staked adjacent to and in the general vicinity of CMC’s claim block. Some of the placer
claims on Canadian and Britannia Creeks overlap the Casino claims in the area of the pit. These placer claims along the upper part of
Canadian creek are located within the projected pit shell and are worked by their owners on a seasonal basis with small heavy equipment.
The northwestern boundary of the Casino property adjoins the Coffee Creek project of Newmont Mining. The property hosts a structurally
controlled gold deposit in metamorphic rocks of the Yukon Tanana terrane and granitoids of mid Cretaceous age. The mineralization
is associated with quartz carbonate and illite alteration and is best described as an orogenic deposit. The project is at a pre-feasibility
stage of development.
The northeastern boundary of the Casino
property abuts the “Betty and Hayes” property held by White Gold Corp. This property abuts the northern boundary of the
narrow eastern extension of the Casino property. At this time, the property has undergone fairly early stages of exploration for similar
orogenic-style gold mineralization to that within the Coffee Creek property.
Part of the eastern extension is also
directly surrounded by the Idaho claim block held by Atac Resources Ltd.
| 1.19 | Conclusions and Recommendations |
The economic results of the Study demonstrate
that the project has positive economics and warrants development. Standard industry practices, equipment and processes were used in this
study. The project is based on conventional open pit mining and typical, well understood, processing methods. The authors of this report
are not aware of any unusual or significant risks, or uncertainties that could affect the reliability or confidence in the project based
on the data and information made available.
Based on the results of this study, it
is recommended that the project advance into the execution planning phase and an application for environmental assessment under the Yukon
Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act be prepared to continue the permitting process.
The 2019, 2020, and 2021 programs comprised
39,372.91 m of diamond drilling on the Casino and Canadian Creek properties, effectively delineating the extent of the Casino deposit.
The 2020 program results indicate the previously identified Canadian zone does not have significant mineral potential, and that there
are no discrete “Gold” and “North Porphyry” zones. Results of drilling, inclusive of 2020, indicate the presence
of a “Deposit Core” of higher-grade material in the east-central deposit area, both within the leached cap and underlying
sulphide mineralized zones.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 18 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The 2021 drilling included several holes
east of, and topographically lower than, Patton Hill. One of these returned a high-grade interval that coincides with the surface trace
of the Casino fault, indicating the fault trace may represent a target for higher-grade mineralization. Farther east, one exploration
hole revealed an interval having geochemical signatures, including anomalous Au-Ag values, indicative of “Bonanza-style” veining,
although of lower grades than typical Bonanza-style zones. The 2021 drilling results are not incorporated into this feasibility study.
The 2021 soil sampling program identified
three anomalies (A through C) from on-site XRF analysis. Three more anomalies (D, E and F) were identified from lab analysis. Of these,
Anomaly F has a geochemical signature most indicative of porphyry-style Cu-Mo-Ag-Au mineralization.
The remaining undrilled exploration holes proposed
for 2021 are recommended to undergo drill testing, as well as further drilling along the trace of the Casino Fault, particularly to the
southeast. Additional drill holes targeting the surface strike projection of the “Bonanza” zone farther east are also recommended.
Detailed B-horizon soil sampling, at a 100-metre line spacing and 50-metre station spacing, are recommended for soil anomalies D, E and
F.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 19 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: Yukon Highway Map, Yukoninfo.com)
Figure 1-1: Casino Property Location
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 20 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 2.1 | Issuer and Purpose of Issue |
This Report was prepared for Casino Mining
Corporation (CMC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Copper and Gold Corporation (Western) as well as for Western itself, by M3 Engineering
& Technology Corporation (M3) in association with Independent Mining Consultants (IMC), GeoSpark Consulting Inc., Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP), and Aurora Geosciences.
The purpose of this report is to provide
an Economic Assessment (Feasibility Study, FS) on the Casino property. The estimate of mineral resources and mineral reserves contained
in this report conforms to the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve definitions
(May 2014) referred to in National Instrument (NI) 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
The effective date of the mineral resource
was April 29, 2022, and the effective date of the mineral reserve was June 13, 2022.
| 2.2 | Sources of Information |
The main sources of information for this
Feasibility Study include the drillhole database provided to IMC in digital form. Also, various geologic solids that were reviewed by
IMC and incorporated into the resource model. A geotechnical report by Knight-Piésold with slope angle recommendations was also
used for the resource cone shell and pit design.
A summary of the Qualified Persons (QPs)
responsible for the content of this report is shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Dates of Site Visits and
Areas of Responsibility
| QP Name |
Company |
Qualification |
Site Visit Date |
Area of Responsibility |
| Daniel Roth |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation |
PE, P.Eng. |
August 6, 2021 |
Sections 1,1.1-1.4, 1.14.1, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.19, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 18.1-18.4, 18.9, 18.10, 19, 21 (except 21.1.5, 21.3.1 and 21.3.3), 22, 24, 26, 26.4 and corresponding section 27 |
| Michael G. Hester |
Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. |
F Aus IMM |
September 7, 2021 |
Sections 1.9, 14 and corresponding section 27 |
| John M. Marek |
Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. |
P. Eng |
September 7, 2021 |
Sections 1.10, 1.11, 15, 16, 21.1.5, 21.3.3, 25.1 and corresponding section 27 |
| Laurie Tahija |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation |
MMSA-QP |
N/A |
Sections 1.12, 1.13, 13, 17, 21.3.1, 25.2, 26.1 and corresponding section 27 |
| Carl Schulze |
Aurora Geosciences |
P. Geo. |
September 9- 26, 2020 |
Sections 1.4-1.8, 1.18, 1.19, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 25.4, 25.5, 26.5 and corresponding section 27 |
| Daniel Friedman |
Knight Piésold Ltd. |
P.Eng. |
N/A |
Sections 1.14.6, 1.14.7, 18.7, 18.8, 25.3, 26.2, 26.3 and corresponding section 27 |
| Pat Dugan |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation |
PE |
N/A |
Sections 1.14.2-1.14.5, 18.5, 18.6 and corresponding section 27 |
| Scott Weston |
Hemmera Envirochem Inc. |
P. Geo. |
N/A |
Section 20 and corresponding section 27 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 21 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 2.4 | Units and Abbreviations |
This report generally uses the SI (metric)
system of units, including metric tonnes. The term “tonne” rather than “ton” is commonly used to denote a metric
ton and is used throughout the report. Unless otherwise specified, currency is in Canadian dollars ($ or C$). Units and abbreviations
used are listed in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Abbreviations Used in this
Document
| Units |
Abbreviation |
| Above mean sea level |
ASL |
| Alaska Industrial Development Authority |
AIDA |
| ALS Global |
ALS |
| Aluminum |
Al |
| Aluminum conductor steel reinforced |
ACSR |
| Amperes |
A |
| Antimony |
Sb |
| Argillic |
ARG |
| Arsenic |
As |
| Associated Engineering |
AE |
| Barium |
Ba |
| Beryllium |
Be |
| Bismuth |
Bi |
| British Colombia |
BC or B.C. |
| B-Train Double |
BTD |
| Cadmium |
Cd |
| Calcium |
Ca |
| Canadian dollars |
$, C$, or
CAD$ |
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum |
CIM |
| Carbon-in-column |
CIC |
| Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd. |
Cariboo Rose |
| Casino Mining Corporation |
CMC |
Central Nervous System (i.e., chemicals
that affect it) |
CNS |
| Chromium |
Cr |
| Cobalt |
Co |
| Combined cycle mode in gas turbines |
CCGT |
| Copper |
Cu |
| Copper equivalent |
CuEq |
| CRS Copper Resources Corp. |
CRS |
| Cubic metres |
m³ |
| Cubic metres per hour |
m³/h |
| Current density |
A/m² |
| Dawson Range Batholith / Granodiorite |
WR, WRGD |
| Degrees Celsius |
ºC |
| Density |
t/m³ |
Direct Current Resistivity and Induced
Polarization |
DC/IP |
| Dollars per ounce |
$/oz |
| Dollars per pound |
$/lb |
| Dollars per tonne |
$/t |
| Effective Grinding Length |
EGL |
| Units |
Abbreviation |
| Eighty percent passing |
K80, P80 |
| Electrowinning |
EW |
Engineering, Procurement and
Construction Management |
EPCM |
| Foot (feet) |
ft |
| G&T Metallurgical Services |
G&T |
| Gallium |
Ga |
| Gas turbine |
GT |
| General & Administrative |
G&A |
| Gold |
Au |
| Grams per litre |
g/L or g/l |
| Grams per tonne |
g/t |
| Greater than |
> |
| Heap leach facility |
HLF |
| Hectare(s) |
ha |
| Horsepower |
hp |
| Hour |
h |
| Hour(s) per kilotonne |
h/kt |
| Huebnerite |
MnWO4 |
| Hypogene sulphide |
HYP |
| Inch |
" |
| Independent Mining Consultants |
IMC |
| Induced Polarization |
IP |
| Induced polarization |
IP |
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy |
ICP-AAS |
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy |
ICP-AAS |
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy |
ICP-AES |
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy |
ICP-AES |
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Emission
Spectroscopy |
ICP-ES |
| Internal Combustion Engine |
ICE |
| Internal rate of return |
IRR |
| Intrusive Breccia |
IX |
| Inverse distance with a power weight of 2 |
ID2 |
| Inverse distance with a power weight of 3 |
ID3 |
| Iron |
Fe |
| Kilo (1,000) |
k |
| Kilogram(s) |
kg |
| Kilogram(s) per tonne |
kg/t |
| Kilometer |
km |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 22 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Units |
Abbreviation |
| Kilopounds |
klbs |
| Kilotonnes |
ktonnes, kt |
| Kilotonnes per year |
kt/y |
| Kilovolt(s) |
kV |
| Kilowatt |
kW |
| Kilowatt-hour |
kWh |
| Kilowatt-hour per tonne |
kWh/t |
| Knight Piésold Ltd. |
KP |
| Lanthanum |
La |
| Last-in-first-out |
LIFO |
| Lead |
Pb |
| Leak detection and recovery system |
LDRS |
| Less than |
< |
| Linear Low-Density Polyethylene |
LLDPE |
| Liquefied natural gas |
LNG |
| Litres |
L, l |
| Litres per hour per square meter |
L/h/m2 |
| Litres per second |
L/s, l/s |
| Long term price |
LTP |
| M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation |
M3 |
| Magnesium |
Mg |
| Magnetotelluric Tensor Resistivity |
MT |
| Manganese |
Mn |
| Manganese |
Mn |
Mass Emission-Inductively Coupled
Plasma Spectroscopy (ICP-MS) |
ICP-MS |
| Material Takeoff |
MTO |
| Mean annual precipitation |
MAP |
| Mega (1,000,000) |
M |
| Megawatt |
MW |
| Mercury |
Hg |
| Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol |
MIBC |
| Metre(s) |
m |
| Metric Tonne (1000 kg) |
t, mt, or tonne |
| Metric tonne per day |
t/d |
| Metric tonne per year |
t/y |
| Micrometer or micron |
µm |
| Milligrams per litre |
mg/L |
| Millimeter(s) |
mm |
| Million |
M |
| Million Canadian dollars |
C$M |
| Million cubic metres |
Mm3 |
| Million dollars |
$M |
| Million ounces |
Moz |
| Million pounds |
Mlbs |
| Million tonnes |
Mt |
| Million tonnes per year |
Mt/y |
| Million years ago |
Ma |
| Molybdenite or Molybdenum |
Mo or Moly |
| National Instrument 43-101 |
NI 43-101 |
| Nearest neighbor |
NN |
| Units |
Abbreviation |
| Net present value |
NPV |
| Net profits interest |
NPI |
| Net smelter return royalty |
NSR |
| Nickel |
Ni |
| Non-Acid Generating |
NAG |
| Non-Government Organizations |
NGOs |
| Notice to Proceed |
NTP |
| Ordinary kriging |
OK |
| Ounce(s) |
oz |
| Overburden |
OVB |
Oxide Dominant Leach Cap, or Leached
Cap Mineralization |
CAP or LC |
| Paleozoic schists and gneisses |
YM |
| Parts per billion |
ppb |
| Parts per million |
ppm |
| Patton Porphyry |
PP |
| Percent |
% |
| Phosphorus |
P |
| Post-mineralization explosive breccia |
MX |
| Potassium |
K |
| Potassium amyl xanthate |
PAX |
| Potentially-Acid Generating |
PAG |
| Pound |
lb |
| Pounds |
lbs |
| Power of hydrogen (measure of acidity) |
pH |
| Preliminary Economic Assessment |
PEA |
| Qualified Person |
QP |
| Quality Assurance and Quality Control |
QA/QC |
| Reclamation and closure plan |
RCP |
| Reverse Circulation |
RC |
| Rock Quality Designation |
RQD |
| Run of Mine |
ROM |
| Scandium |
Sc |
| Semi-autogenous grinding |
SAG |
| SGS Canada Inc. |
SGS |
| Silver |
Ag |
| SMC |
SAG Mill
Comminution |
| Snow water equivalent |
SWE |
| Sodium |
Na |
| Sodium Cyanide |
NaCN |
| Sodium Hydrosulfide |
NaSH |
| Specific gravity |
S.G. |
| Square metres |
m² |
| Steam Turbine |
ST |
| Strontium |
Sr |
Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling
and Thickening |
SART |
| Supergene oxide |
SOX |
| Supergene sulphide |
SUS |
| Tailing Management Facility |
TMF |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 23 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Units |
Abbreviation |
| Temperature Celsius |
°C |
| Temperature Fahrenheit |
°F |
| Thallium |
Tl |
| Thousand troy ounces |
koz |
| Titanium |
Ti |
| Tonnage factor or specific volume |
m³/tonne or m³/t |
| Tonnes per day |
t/d |
| Tonnes per year |
t/y |
| Tungsten |
W |
| Uranium |
U |
| US dollars |
US$ |
| Vanadium |
V |
| Volt |
V |
| Weak Acid Soluble |
WAS |
| Western Copper and Gold Corporation |
Western |
| Year |
y, yr |
| Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act |
YESAA |
| Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board |
YESAB |
| Yukon First Nations |
UFA |
| Yukon Geological Survey |
YGS |
| Yukon-Tanana terrane |
YTT |
| Zinc |
Zn |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 24 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
3
Reliance on Other Experts
In cases where the study authors have
relied on contributions of other qualified persons, the conclusions and recommendations are exclusively the qualified persons’ own.
The results and opinions outlined in this report that are dependent on information provided by qualified persons outside the employ of
M3 are assumed to be current, accurate and complete as of the date of this report.
Information received from other experts
has been reviewed for factual errors by CMC and M3. Any changes made as a result of these reviews did not involve any alteration to the
conclusions made. Hence, the statement and opinions expressed in these documents are given in good faith and in the belief that such statements
and opinions are not false and misleading at the date of these reports.
M3 relied upon Western Copper and Gold
Corporation for project ownership data. M3 did not verify ownership or any underlying agreements. Mining is a risky business. The risk
must be borne by the Owner. M3 does not assume any liability other than performing this technical study to normal professional standards.
The following sections describe additional
information that this report relies upon beyond that which was provided by the QPs listed in Section 2.2.
| 3.1 | Metallurgy and Process Engineering |
Outside reports that were relied upon
included the following:
- ALS Metallurgy (formally G&T Metallurgical Services) of Kamloops, BC, performed numerous metallurgical
testing to advance the flotation process design. Tom Shouldice was the official contact. International Metallurgical and Environmental
and CMC managed and oversaw this work with input from FLSmidth.
- Starkey and Associates of Oakville, Ontario, performed a grinding circuit study. John Starkey is the official
contact for Starkey and Associates. CMC managed and oversaw this work with input from FLSmidth.
- SGS Lakefield Research Limited of Lakefield, Ontario, performed a grinding circuit study. Carlos Lozano
was the official contact for SGS Lakefield. CMC managed and oversaw SGS’s work.
- FLSmidth, 2012. Casino Project Circuit Design Basis – Update on test work and Mill Sizing/Selection.
Unpublished Company Report prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation. FLSmidth Salt Lake City, Inc. June 2012.
- SGS E&S Engineering Solutions (formerly METCON Research) of Tucson, AZ, USA performed metallurgical testing
to advance design of the gold heap leach. Rodrigo Carneiro was the official contact. CMC managed and oversaw SGS’s work.
- Carl Schulze relied on the Yukon Mining website for information necessary for the “Adjacent Properties”
section (Section 23) of the Government of Yukon at: https://yukon.ca/en/mining, specifically
at: https://yukon.ca/en/science-and-natural-resources/mining/find-maps-and-records-mining-claims-and-tenure.
M3 staff and consultants reviewed and
evaluated metallurgical results from the tests listed above. In addition to supervising the effort, M3’s Laurie Tahija also reviewed
and approved design criteria, flow sheets and equipment lists for the metallurgical processes.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 25 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. assisted
by Lauga & Associates Consulting, Ltd. performed updates of the studies of transportation options including selection and design of
the access road route. Associated Engineers and Lauga also prepared a report on port facility options.
The transportation costs for concentrates
and bulk commodities used in the estimate are based on information from various sources that include: Seaspan Marine, Arrow Transport,
Lynden and Braemar. Western Copper performed research for and obtained costs for some of the transportation costs. M3 also performed research
for and obtained costs for some of the transportation costs and also evaluated the information received by Western Copper for the rest
of the transportation costs.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 26 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 4 | Property
Description and Location |
The Casino porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum
deposit is located at latitude 62° 44'N and longitude 138° 50'W (NTS map sheet 115J/09, 10 and 15), in west central Yukon, in
the north-westerly trending Dawson Range mountains, 300 km northwest of the territorial capital of Whitehorse. Figure 1-1 in Section
1 is a map showing the location of the Casino property in relation to the Yukon, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories (Source:
Yukon Highway Map, Yukoninfo.com). The property covers a total area of 13,124 ha.
The Yukon has a population of approximately
40,800 people. Whitehorse is the nearest commercial and population centre to the project property, with a population of approximately
30,000 people. Projected land access to Whitehorse would be 380 km via the Village of Carmacks. No human settlements can be described
as “local.” The Village of Carmacks is located about 150 km ESE, and the settlement of Pelly Crossing is about 115 km ENE.
Beaver Creek, a village on the Alaskan Highway, is located about 112 km WSW. Fairbanks, Alaska is 500 km WNW.
The Arctic Circle is 430 km to the north.
The Yukon River flows about 16 km north of the site. Yukon Highway 1, the Alaskan Highway, is about 110 km west at the nearest point.
Yukon Highway 2, the Klondike Highway, is about 100 km to the east at the nearest point. No year-round roads reach the property.
The international border and Alaska are
about 111 km to the west at the nearest point. British Columbia is south approximately 300 km. The closest port is Skagway, Alaska.
Exploration and mining projects in the
area include the following:
| · | To the west, Newmont is developing the Coffee project. The project is currently at the pre-feasibility
stage and is undergoing environmental assessment under the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act (YESAA). They are also
active with exploration on their project. |
| · | To the north and to the west, White Gold Corp. has a large number of claims and is actively exploring
them. |
| · | Approximately 100 km to the east, Minto Explorations Ltd. operates the Minto Mine, which produces copper-silver-gold
concentrate that is shipped through the port of Skagway. |
The project is located on Crown land
administered by the Yukon Government and is primarily within the Selkirk First Nation traditional territory. The Tr’ondek Hwechin
traditional territory lies to the north and the proposed access road crosses into Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation traditional territory
to the south. The White River First Nation and Kluane First Nation are also potentially impacted by the project.
| 4.2 | Land Position and Status |
| 4.2.1 | Property Description |
The Dawson Range forms a series of well-rounded
ridges and hills that reach a maximum elevation of 1,675 m above mean sea level (ASL). The ridges rise above the Yukon Plateau, a peneplain
at approximately 1,200 m ASL, which is deeply incised by the mature drainage of the Yukon River watershed.
The characteristic terrain consists of
rounded, rolling topography with moderate to deeply incised valleys. Major drainage channels extend below 1,000 m elevation. Most of the
project lies between the 650 m elevation at Dip Creek and an elevation of 1,400 m at Patton Hill. The most notable local physical feature
is the Yukon River which flows to the west about 16 km north of the project site.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 27 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The mean annual temperature for the Casino
Project area is estimated to be -2.7°C, with minimum and maximum monthly temperatures of -18.1°C and 11.1°C occurring in January
and July, respectively. The mean monthly temperature values are presented in Table 5-1 in Section 5. The Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP)
for the Casino Project area is estimated to be 500 mm, with 65% falling as rain and 35% falling as snow.
Characteristic wildlife in the region
includes caribou, grizzly and black bear, Dall sheep, moose, beaver, fox, wolf, hare, raven, rock and willow ptarmigan, and golden eagle.
The tops of hills and ridges are sparsely
covered by tundra and buckbrush, with boreal forest covering valley floors and slopes below 1,200 m of elevation. Vegetation consists
of black and white spruce forests with aspen and occasional lodgepole pine. Black spruce and paper birch prevail on permafrost slopes.
Balsam poplar is common along floodplains. Scrub birch and willow “buckbrush” form extensive stands in subalpine sections
from valley bottoms to well above the tree line.
See Section 20 for a list of permits
either obtained or in progress. No environmental liabilities are expected to impact the Project.
The Casino Property lies within the Whitehorse
Mining District and consists of a total of 1,136 full and partial Quartz Claims, and 55 Placer Claims acquired in accordance with the
Yukon Quartz Mining Act. The total area covered by Casino Quartz Claims is 21,288 ha. The total area covered by Casino Placer Claims is
490.34 ha. The 825 quartz claims (of a total of 1,136 claims) comprise the initial Casino Property and 311 claims comprise the Canadian
Creek Property acquired in 2019. The claims are registered in the name of, and are 100%-owned by, Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Western Copper and Gold Corporation (Western). A list of claims is provided in Appendix B.
The historical claims held by prior owners
of the project and transferred as part of 2006 Western Copper’s plan of arrangement with Lumina Resources Corp. (“Lumina”)
consist of 83 Casino “A” claims covering an area of 1,154 ha, 23 claims in the “JOE” block covering an area of
323.63 ha and 55 Casino “B” claims covering an area of 929.93 ha, 9 claims of which were repurchased from Cariboo Rose
Resources Ltd. (“Cariboo Rose”) in November 2016 pursuant to an early exercise of 2002 Casino B option agreement. Forty-six
of the Casino “B” claims were reacquired in July 2019 pursuant to the Canadian Creek Property Purchase Agreement, described
in Section 4.2.4 in more detail. The Casino Deposit lies entirely on the Casino “A” claims.
CMC has significantly expanded the area
of its mineral property by the staking and acquisition of mineral claims. The 188 VIK mineral claims, covering an area of 3,440 ha, were
staked in June 2007 by CRS Copper Resources Corp (“CRS”), a predecessor of CMC. In June 2008, an additional 94 “CC”
claims covering an area of 1,930 ha, 8 BL claims covering area of 157.24 ha, and 63 “BRIT” claims covering an area of 1,218
ha, were staked by CRS. In October 2009, CRS staked 136 AXS mineral claims, covering an area of 2,763 ha. In May of 2010, CRS staked an
additional 63 AXS claims, covering an area of 1,254 ha. In 2011, CRS staked 18 FLY claims covering 327 ha. In May 2016, 87 PAL claims
were staked by CMC, covering 1,818.18 ha. In July 2019, CMC acquired additional 311 mineral claims from Cariboo Rose that comprise the
Canadian Creek Property and covering area of 6,001.47 ha. In September 2019, CMC staked 53 CAS19 claims covering an area of 759.88 ha.
| 4.2.4 | Ownership and Agreements |
CMC is a successor in title to the Casino
Property pursuant to the Plan of Arrangement completed on October 17, 2011.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 28 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
CRS, a predecessor of CMC, acquired the
Casino A, B and JOE claims, comprising the historical Casino property, on August 9, 2007, by exercising its option pursuant to a Letter
Agreement dated July 15, 2002 (“2002 Option”) with Great Basin Gold Ltd. (“Great Basin”). The Casino deposit lies
entirely on the Casino A claims.
On December 21, 2012, CMC entered into
the Net Smelter Returns Royalty Agreement (the “NSR Royalty Agreement”) with 8248567 Canada Ltd. (“8248567 Canada”),
whereby the 2.75% Net Smelter Return Royalty (“NSR”) was established on all Casino claims excluding fifty-five (55) Casino
B Claims. As consideration for purchasing the 2.75% NSR, 8248567 Canada cancelled the existing 5% NPR (except on Casino B Claims).
On November 2, 2016, pursuant to the
Early Exercise and Purchase Agreement (the “Early Exercise and Purchase Agreement”), Cariboo Rose exercised its right to acquire
fifty-five (55) Casino B Claims, as described in the option agreement dated May 2, 2000 (the “Casino B Option Agreement”)
between Cariboo Rose and CMC (a successor to title by virtue of 2002 Option). As part of the Early Exercise and Purchase, CMC reacquired
nine (9) Casino B Claims (the “Nine Casino B Claims”). Forty-six (46) Casino B Claims (the “Forty-Six Casino B Claims”)
were transferred to Cariboo Rose and became part of the Canadian Creek Property owned by Cariboo Rose.
On August 28, 2019, CMC and Cariboo Rose
completed the Canadian Creek Property Purchase Agreement (the “Canadian Creek Property Purchase Agreement”), whereby
Forty-Six Casino B Claims were reacquired as part of the Canadian Creek Property consisting of a total of 311 mineral claims.
| 4.2.5 | Agreements and Royalties |
Certain portions of the Casino property
remain subject to the 2.75% NSR in favor of Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd. (“Osisko Gold”) pursuant to the Royalty Assignment
and Assumption Agreement dated July 31, 2017, when 8248567 Canada assigned to Osisko Gold all of its rights, title, and interest in the
2.75% NSR.
Certain royalty interests originated
from certain historical agreements are deemed to have been dissolved pursuant to the insolvency proceedings and subsequent corporate dissolution
of an original royalty holder given that there is no evidence that these royalty interests have ever been assigned, transferred, or sold
to a third party.
In the summer of 2010, Western staked
a 5-mile Placer Lease along Casino Creek and a 3-mile Placer Lease along Britannia Creek. In 2011, these leases were converted to claims.
In 2014, 30 placer claims on Britannia Creek were dropped and presently, Western, through CMC, owns 55 placer claims on Casino Creek.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 29 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 4-1: Project Road Access Map
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 30 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 5 | Accessibility,
Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography |
The Casino Mine is located in Central
Yukon, at approximately N62° 44’ 25”, W138° 49’ 32” roughly 150 km due northwest of Carmacks. Current
site access is by small aircraft using the existing 760 m airstrip, by winter road from the west, and from a seasonally accessible road
extending from a barge landing at the Yukon River.
The barge landing area at Britannia Creek
and the Yukon River was prepared in 2010 and the lower 10 km of the 23 km access road from the landing to the site was realigned.
The Casino property is located in the
Dawson Range, a north-westerly trending belt of well-rounded ridges and hills that reach a maximum elevation of about 1,675 m. The hills
rise above the Yukon Plateau, at about 1,250 m and deeply incised by mature dendritic drainages. Although the Dawson Range escaped Pleistocene
continental glaciation, minor alpine glaciation has produced a few small cirques and terminal moraines.
The deposit area is situated on a small
divide. The northern part of the property drains to Canadian Creek and Britannia Creek into the Yukon River. The southern part of the
property flows southward via Casino Creek to Dip Creek to the Donjek River and northward to the Yukon River.
Outcrop is rare on the property. Soil
development is variable ranging from coarse talus and immature soil horizons at higher elevations to a more mature soil profile and thick
organic accumulations on the valley floors.
The climate in the Dawson Range is subarctic.
Permafrost is widespread on north-facing slopes, and discontinuous on south-facing slopes. CMC installed an automated weather station
at the site in 2009 and collected a certain amount of data.
The climate at the Casino Project area
can generally be described as continental and cold. Winters are long, cold, and dry, with snow generally on the ground from late September
through mid-May. Summers are short, mild, and wet, with the greatest monthly precipitation falling in July. The climate and hydrology
at the Project site have been assessed based on both short-term site data and longer-term regional data. Site data are available from
a program operated from 1993 to 1995 and from the current program that was initiated in 2008.
The mean annual temperature for the Casino
Project area is estimated to be -2.7°C, with mean minimum and maximum monthly temperatures of -18.1°C and 11.1°C occurring
in January and July, respectively. The mean annual precipitation (MAP) for the Casino Project area is estimated to be 500 mm, with 65%
falling as rain and 35% falling as snow. The mean monthly temperatures and precipitation are presented in Table 5-1.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 31 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 5-1: Mean Monthly Temperature
and Precipitation Values
| |
Parameter |
| Month |
Precipitation (mm) |
Temperature (°C) |
| Jan |
25 |
-18.1 |
| Feb |
19 |
-14.2 |
| Mar |
16 |
-8.2 |
| Apr |
15 |
-0.1 |
| May |
42 |
5.7 |
| Jun |
74 |
9.8 |
| July |
103 |
11.1 |
| Aug |
65 |
9.1 |
| Sept |
49 |
4.4 |
| Oct |
35 |
-3.3 |
| Nov |
31 |
-12.7 |
| Dec |
26 |
-16.5 |
| Annual |
500 |
-2.7 |
The estimated average annual lake
evaporation is 308 mm, based on climate data collected at site and used in conjunction with long-term regional climate data.
Based on the estimated MAP of 500 mm
and a rain/snow ratio of 0.65/0.35, the annual snowfall value for Casino was estimated to be 175 mm. This is generally consistent with
the 140 mm mean annual maximum snowpack value (snow water equivalent, SWE) recorded in the Project area at the Casino Creek snow course
station (09CD-SC01) operated by the Yukon Department of Environment (1977-2009), Water Resources Branch.
Based on the complete years of snowpack
data, the average monthly snowmelt distribution for the Casino Project area was estimated to be 40% in April and 60% in May, although
there is considerable variation from year to year.
It is assumed that water rights can be
obtained for withdrawal of water from the Yukon River.
There is no utility power available to
serve the site. The Project will need to generate its own power.
CMC has sufficient rights and available
land at the Project site for a mine, tailing storage areas, waste disposal areas, heap leach pad areas and process plant areas.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 32 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
6
History
The first documented work on the Casino
Property was the working of placer claims in the area of the Casino Deposit in April 1911, following a placer gold discovery on Canadian
Creek by J. Britton and C. Brown. A study by D.D. Cairnes, of the Geological Survey of Canada in 1917, recognized huebnerite (MnWO4)
in the heavy-mineral concentrates of the placer workings and also that the gold and tungsten mineralization was derived from an intrusive
complex on Patton Hill. During the Second World War, a small amount of tungsten was recovered from placer workings. The total placer gold
production from the area of the property is unknown, but during the period 1980-1985 placer mining yielded about 50 kg (1,615 troy ounces)
of gold.
The first mineral claims at Casino were
staked by N. Hansen in 1917; however, the first recorded bedrock mineral discovery occurred in 1936 when J. Meloy and A. Brown located
silver-lead-zinc veins approximately 3 km south of the Canadian Creek placer workings. Over the next several years the Bomber and Helicopter
vein systems were explored by hand trenches and pits. In 1943, the Helicopter claims were staked and in 1947 the Bomber and Airport groups
were staked.
Lead-silver mineralization remained the
focus of exploration on the property until 1968. Noranda Exploration Co Ltd. optioned the property in 1948 and Rio Tinto optioned it again
in 1963. During this time trenching, mapping, and sampling were conducted.
L. Proctor purchased the claims in 1963
and formed Casino Silver Mines Limited to develop the silver-rich veins. The silver-bearing veins were explored and developed intermittently
by underground and surface workings from 1965 to 1980. In total, 372.5 tonnes of hand-cobbled argentiferous galena, assaying 3,689 g/t
silver (Ag), 17.1 g/t gold (Au), 48.3% lead (Pb), 5% zinc (Zn), 1.5% copper (Cu) and 0.02% bismuth (Bi), were shipped to the smelter at
Trail, British Columbia.
In 1963, B. Hestor first recognized that
the area had potential for a porphyry copper deposit, but his observations did not become generally known. In 1967, the porphyry potential
was recognized again, this time by A. Archer and separately by G. Harper. Based on the recognition of porphyry copper potential, the Brynelsen
Group acquired Casino Silver Mines Limited, and from 1968 to 1973 exploration was directed jointly by Brameda Resources (Brameda), Quintana
Minerals (Quintana), and Teck Corporation towards a porphyry target. Exploration, including extensive soil sampling surveys, geophysical
surveys, and trenching programs, eventually led to the discovery of the Casino deposit in 1969.
From 1969 to 1973, various parties, including
Brameda Resources, Quintana Minerals and Teck Corporation, conducted drilling on the property. During this period 5,328 m of reverse circulation
drilling in 35 holes, and 12,547 m of diamond drilling in 56 holes, were completed.
Archer, Cathro & Associates (1981)
Ltd. (Archer Cathro) optioned the property in 1991 and assigned the option to Big Creek Resources Ltd. In 1992, a program consisting of
21 HQ (63.5 mm diameter) holes totaling 4,729 m systematically assessed the gold potential in the core area of the deposit for the first
time.
In 1992, Pacific Sentinel Gold Corp.
(PSG) acquired the property from Archer Cathro and commenced a major exploration program. The 1993 program included surface mapping and
50,316 m of HQ (63.5 mm diameter) and NQ (47.6 mm diameter) drilling in 127 holes. All but one of the twenty-one 1992 drill holes were
deepened in 1993.
PSG drilled an additional 108 drill holes
totaling 18,085 m in 1994. This program completed the delineation drilling commenced in 1993. PSG also performed metallurgical, geotechnical,
and environmental work which was used in a scoping study in 1995. The scoping study envisioned a large-scale open pit mine and a conventional
flotation concentrator that would produce a copper-gold concentrate for sale to Pacific Rim smelters.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 33 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
First Trimark Resources and CRS Copper
Resources obtained the property and, using the PSG data, published a Qualifying Report on the property in 2003 to bring the resource estimate
into compliance with National Instrument 43-101 requirements. The two firms combined to form Lumina Copper Corporation in 2004. An update
of the Qualifying Report was issued in 2004.
Western Copper Corporation acquired Lumina
Copper Corporation, and therefore the Casino Deposit, in November 2006. In the fall of 2011, Western Copper Corporation spun out all other
assets except the Casino Deposit and changed its name to Western Copper and Gold Corporation (Western).
In 2007, Western conducted an evaluation
of the Bomber Vein System and the southern slope of Patton Hill by VLF-EM, Horizontal Loop EM, and soil geochemical surveying. Environmental
baseline studies were also initiated in 2007.
In 2008, Western reclaimed the old camp
site, constructed a new exploration camp (the present camp) next to the Casino airstrip and drilled three holes (the camp water well and
two exploration diamond drill holes) totaling 1,163 m. The main purpose of the drilling was to obtain fresh core samples for the metallurgical
and waste characterization tests. Both exploration holes twinned PSG’s holes to confirm historical copper, gold, and molybdenum
grades. Later that year, M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation produced a pre-feasibility study for Western Copper and Gold Corporation.
In 2009, Western completed 22.5 km of
DC/IP surveying and MT surveying using the Titan system developed by Quantec Geosciences Ltd. As well, the company drilled 10,943 m in
37 diamond drill holes, of which 27 holes were infill holes drilled to upgrade the previously designated Inferred Resource and non-defined
material to the Measured and Indicated resource categories. Infill drilling covered the north slope of Patton Hill that was mapped as
a “Latite Plug” on PSG maps. The drilling also identified supergene Cu and Mo mineralization in this area. The remaining 10 holes,
totaling 4,327 m, were drilled to test geophysical targets.
In 2010, Western, under the direction
of the Casino Mining Corporation (CMC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Western, completed infill and delineation drilling mostly to the
north and west of the deposit, as outlined by PSG. The drilling program also defined hypogene mineralization at the southern end of the
deposit. In addition, the company drilled a series of geotechnical holes at the proposed tailings embankment area and within the pit,
and several other holes for hydrogeological studies. The geotechnical drilling continued in 2011 (41 holes, 3,163 m) and 2012 (6 holes,
228 m). This work culminated in the publishing of a pre-feasibility study in 2011 and a feasibility study in 2013.
In 2019, CMC carried out a program of
infill drilling comprising 13,590 m in 72 holes. The program was designed to convert mineralization located along the margin of the deposit
from the Inferred Resource category to the Indicated Resource category.
In 2020, CMC completed a diamond drilling
program comprising 12,007.54 m in 49 holes, targeting three main areas: the Gold, Northern Porphyry and Casino West zones. Drilling at
the Gold Zone was designed to test for higher grade mineralization along the south and west boundaries of the deposit. Drilling at the
Casino West zone was designed to test for continuation of the deposit along the south flank of the Canadian Creek valley. Also, three
holes targeted the Ana Zone, about 4 km west of the main deposit.
A breakdown of drilling by Western and
CMC from 2010 to the end of 2019 is as follows:
| · | 173 exploration holes for 39,372.91 m. |
| · | 11 combined hydrogeological and geological holes for 1,689.58 m. |
| · | 53 geotechnical holes in the proposed tailings embankment, heap leach pad, plant site, waste rock storage
site, airstrip, access road and water well areas, for 3,786.54 m. |
| · | 5 holes for 1,570.63 m for the metallurgical sample. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 34 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The total meterage drilled by Western
and CMC from 2008 to the end of 2020 is 58,646.91 m.
In 2021, CMC completed a diamond drill
program, developed with input from Rio Tinto, comprising 6,074.97 m in 22 holes, including 16 within the Casino deposit resource
boundaries. Within the resource area, drilling comprised 5 resource confirmation holes, 3 metallurgical testing holes, and 8 holes
for geotechnical analysis. All holes returned copper-equivalent values that confirmed or, in some cases, exceeded values from previous
drilling. Higher-grade values returned from the eastern margins of the deposit resource area may mark the trace of the Casino Fault.
An additional 6 exploration holes were
drilled outside of the deposit area. Although the majority did not return significant mineralized intercepts, low-grade Au-Ag mineralization
in one hole may mark another structural feature.
The 2021 program also included seven
short geotechnical holes, comprising two at the proposed tailings management facility, four at the proposed heap leach site, and one at
the proposed processing facility. The program also included on-site hyperspectral scanning of 48,673 m of core from 1992 -1994, 2008 -
2012, the 2021 core and some 2020 core.
In July 2021, Western and CMC completed
a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) report, incorporating data from drilling from 1992 through 2019. The PEA recommended advancement
to a Feasibility Study to determine the mineral reserves for the deposit. Results from the 2020 program were excluded from the PEA but
are included in this Feasibility Study.
| 6.1 | History of Canadian Creek Property |
In mid-2019, CMC acquired the adjacent
Canadian Creek property from Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd (Cariboo Rose).
Exploration on the Canadian Creek property
dates from 1992 when Archer Cathro & Associates staked the Ana Claims. In 1993, Eastfield Resources Ltd. (Eastfield) acquired the
Ana Claims, expanded the Ana Claim block, and explored the expanded property with soil grids, trenching and drilling (Johnston, 2018).
This work was directed at the discovery of additional porphyry deposits. The 1993 program was followed by extensive field programs in
1996, 1997, and 1999 consisting of induced polarization (IP) surveying, road construction and trenching on the Ana, Koffee, Maya and Ice
claims. In 2000, another drill campaign was undertaken by Eastfield on the Ana, Koffee Bowl, and the newly acquired Casino “B”
claims located immediately to the west of the Casino deposit. The Casino “B” holes confirmed the existence of gold mineralization
first discovered here in 1994 by PSG, which encountered 55.17 m averaging 0.71 g/t gold in hole 94-319.
Modest exploration programs were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005, mostly over the Casino “B” area. In 2007, a five-hole core
drilling program at Casino “B” targeted gold and copper-in-soil anomalies and ground magnetic high features.
The discovery in 2009 of gold mineralization
on Underworld Resources’ White Gold property sparked new interest in gold exploration in the Yukon. This led to the implementation
of a major exploration program at Canadian Creek. This was directed at the gold potential of the property, including areas some distance
from previous work, and focusing on porphyry copper mineralization.
A soil survey revealed extensive areas
returning greater than 15 ppb gold in soils with associated anomalous values in arsenic (As), bismuth (Bi) and antimony (Sb). The anomalous
area extends for over 4 km in an east-northeast direction. The induced polarization
(IP) surveys revealed numerous strong chargeability highs, many of which coincide with the gold-in-soil anomalies.
Ten diamond drill holes were completed
within the new grid. Results include numerous intervals of anomalous gold values, commonly associated with elevated As, Sb and Bi. The
mineralization is hosted in both granodiorite and gneiss country rock, commonly in clay-altered structures, sheeted pyrite veins and/or
quartz-carbonate veins. With few exceptions, gold grades are less than 1 gram per
tonne (g/t) and widths are less than 3 m.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 35 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Resampling of old trenches in other parts
of the property was undertaken to verify significant historical gold results. In trench Tr-2,
excavated in 1993 and located in the Ana Pass area, a grab sample of a tourmaline-pyrite-quartz
altered intrusive rock returned 2,516 ppb gold. In the Casino “B” area, trench 9076-C
averaged 376 ppb gold over 50 m, including a 10 m interval of 927 ppb.
In 2011, additional soil sampling, ground
geophysical surveying and trenching were completed. The soil sampling completed the coverage of the entire Canadian Creek property and
increased the known extent of the arsenic anomalies. A limited-extent induced polarization survey identified two zones of chargeability
with values greater than 20 mv/V. The trenching program identified several areas with anomalous gold values, ranging from sub-detection
level up to 2,890 and 4,400 ppb Au.
As a follow up on the 2011 program, a
modest 2016 program of trenching, prospecting and in-fill soil sampling was carried out by Cariboo Rose, which had acquired the property
from Eastfield. Trenching conducted in three areas of the Ana portion of the Canadian Creek property returned locally anomalous Au, and
widely spread anomalous As, Bi, Sb and locally high Ag values, generally confined to narrow structures.
Cariboo Rose’s 2017 exploration
program consisted of surface work directed at the Kana and Malt West gold targets and a reverse circulation (RC) drill program that tested
a variety of gold targets across the property. A total of 2,151.27 m of reverse circulation (RC) drilling was conducted in 24 holes.
This work confirmed that zones of gold and silver mineralization to be limited to narrow (less than 3 m wide) structures rarely traceable
over more than 100 m.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 36 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 7 | Geological
Setting and Mineralization |
The Casino deposit occurs within the
Yukon-Tanana terrane (YTT), a northwest-southeast trending accreted terrane comprising Neoproterozoic to Upper Cretaceous metaigneous
and metasedimentary rocks abutting the southwest side of the Tintina Fault Zone northeast of the property. This was previously described
as an overlapping zone of the Yukon Cataclastic Terrane to the north and the Yukon Crystalline Terrane to the south (Templeman-Kluit,
1976). An elongate band of ultramafic rocks, 1 km north of the Casino deposit, may occur along a major tectonic suture. The YTT in this
area has undergone emplacement of the 104 Ma Dawson Range Batholith, part of the Whitehorse Intrusive Suite. The Dawson Range Batholith
extends WNW for about 300 km, roughly parallel to the regional orientation of strata comprising the YTT, also known as the Yukon Metamorphic
Complex.
The YTT is dominated by Paleozoic rocks
with scattered intrusions of the Coffee Creek Suite that are petrographically distinct from the Dawson Range Batholith. The YTT in the
Dawson Range area is comprised of metasedimentary rocks of the Proterozoic to Devonian Snowcap assemblage, rocks of the Devono-Mississippian
Wolverine Creek Metamorphic Suite, (Johnston, 1995) and rocks of the Permian Sulphur Creek assemblage (website, Yukon Geological Survey,
2020). Snowcap assemblage rocks comprise quartzites, pelites, psammites and marble (YGS, 2020). Stratigraphy of the Wolverine Creek Suite
comprises sedimentary and igneous protoliths (Tempelman-Kluit, 1974; Payne et al., 1987). These metasedimentary rocks consist mainly of
quartz-feldspar-mica schist and gneiss, quartzite, and micaceous quartzite, while the meta-igneous unit includes biotite-hornblende-feldspar
gneiss and other orthogneisses, as well as hornblende amphibolite (Selby & Nesbit, 1997).
During the mid-Cretaceous period, Wolverine
Creek suite rocks in this area were intruded by the Dawson Range Batholith, subsequently intruded by the Casino Intrusive Suite (Selby
et al., 1999). The Dawson Range Batholith has incorporated scattered roof–pendants and blocks of the YTT, particularly Snowcap Assemblage
and Wolverine Creek Suite rocks. The Dawson Range Batholith is the main country rock of the Casino Property and is represented by a relatively
homogeneous, medium- to coarse-grained, hornblende-bearing, potassic quartz diorite to granodiorite, and lesser fine- to medium-grained
diorite and quartz monzonitic veins, dykes, and plugs (Tempelman-Kluit, 1974).
The Casino Intrusions, also called the
Casino Plutonic Suite, have been described as a suite of quartz monzonite stocks up to 18 km across (Hart and Selby, 1998) trending west-northwest
parallel to the Big Creek Lineament and its northwestern extension. Mapping by Tempelman-Kluit (1974), and successively by Payne et al.
(1987), associates this Casino Plutonic Suite with the mid-Cretaceous Dawson Range Batholith. Subsequently, Johnston (1995) grouped the
intrusions with the late-Cretaceous Prospector Mountain Plutonic Suite, based largely on field relationships that show stocks of the Casino
Plutonic Suite cutting the Dawson Range Batholith. Subsequent age determination by Mortensen and Hart (1998), as well as geochemistry
provided by Selby et al. (1999), re-evaluated the Casino Intrusions as mid-Cretaceous fractionated magmas of the Dawson Range Batholith.
Recent field relationships have proven that the ‘quartz monzonites’ of the Casino property, once thought to be separate intrusions,
are intensely altered and recrystallized diorites of the Dawson Range Batholith.
During late Cretaceous time, stocks and
apophyses of the Prospector Mountain Plutonic Suite were emplaced into the Dawson Range Batholith (Johnston, 1995; Selby et al, 1999).
In the Casino area, this suite is represented by the 72.4 Ma Patton Porphyry intrusions, occurring as small, biotite-bearing, feldspar-porphyritic,
hypabyssal rhyodacite to dacite intrusions near the centre of the deposit, and as discontinuous centimeter- to metre-wide dikes northwest
of the property. Here, early phases of the Patton Porphyry have undergone multiple phases of brecciation, resulting in a mineralized intrusive
breccia. Later, unaltered dykes of similar lithology cut surrounding hydrothermally altered and mineralized rocks (Payne et al., 1987)
suggesting there are multiple phases of this unit (Bower, 1995; Selby and Creaser, 2001). The interpreted multi-phased emplacement of
the Patton Porphyry was supported by detailed re-logging of select core by Rio Tinto personnel. Hydrothermal alteration and mineralization
occur in, and adjacent to, some of these late Cretaceous intrusions.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 37 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The regional geology is illustrated in
Figure 7-1, with the accompanying legend shown in Figure 7-2. Figure 7-3 summarizes the local geologic setting of the Casino property
area. Table 7-1 summarizes the stratigraphy and isotopic ages of the area. All isotopic dates are based on U-Pb ratios in zircons analyzed
by J.R. Mortensen.
Table 7-1: Stratigraphic Column
| |
Geological Unit |
Isotopic Age |
|
Late Cretaceous |
PROSPECTOR MOUNTAIN PLUTONIC SUITE: |
|
Intrusive Breccia (Diatreme)
Heterolithic;
fine-grained
matrix; angular
clastic |
|
|
Heterolithic Intrusion
Breccia
Heterolithic; Patton porphyry/potassic
matrix; autobrecciated fragments |
|
|
Patton Porphyry: Rhyodacitic to dacitic
intrusion
Plagioclase-Biotite
Porphyry;
K-feldspar +/- Qz megacrystic
porphyry |
72.4 +/-0.5 Ma |
|
mid-
Cretaceous |
DAWSON RANGE BATHOLITH: |
|
Granodiorite
biotite-hornblende
granodiorite |
104.0 +/-0.5 Ma |
|
Diorite
Hornblende-Biorite-Quartz
Diorite; hornblende-biotite
diorite |
104.0 +/-0.5 Ma |
|
Devono-
Mississippian |
WOLVERINE CREEK METAMORPHIC SUITE: |
|
Meta-sedimentary
Micaceous Quartzite |
|
|
Meta-igneous
Qtz-Bi-Plagioclase-Microcline
Gneiss; K-Feldspar-Quartz-Biotite Gneiss; Amphibolite |
|
| Proterooic- Devonian |
SNOWCAP ASSEMBLAGE |
|
Metasedimentary:
Quartzite, psammites, pelites, marble |
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 38 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-1: Regional Geology, Casino
project area
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 39 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-2: Legend, Regional Geology,
Casino Property area
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 40 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-3: Local Geology, Casino
Property area
The Casino Property is sandwiched
between parallel west-northwest-trending faults that form contacts between rocks of the Wolverine Creek Metamorphic Suite and the Dawson
Range Batholith. In Figure 7-4, the fault farthest to the northeast is an extension of the Big Creek Fault, interpreted as having undergone
dextral offsetting of 20 to 45 km. A parallel fault, 8 km to the southwest, forms the southwest boundary of a sliver of Wolverine
Creek Metamorphic Suite rocks and contains outcroppings of ultramafic rocks similar to those occurring along the Big Creek Fault.
The Casino Property is bounded to
the southeast by a northeast-trending regional structure known as the Dip Creek Fault, which has a left lateral (sinistral) displacement.
The left-lateral displacement of stratigraphy along the Yukon River east of the Casino Property reflects sinistral movement along this
fault. The east-trending Minto-Battle Fault is also sinistrally offset by the Dip Creek Fault (Johnston, 1999). The dextrally offset Minto-Battle
fault lies east of the Casino Property on the opposite side of Dip Creek, with its offset extension lying south and southwest of the Casino
Property.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 41 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-4: Regional Structures Overlain
on Recent Aeromagnetic Survey
The geological setting of the Casino
deposit is typical of many porphyry copper deposits. The deposit is centered on an Upper Cretaceous (72.4 Ma), east-west trending elongate
dacite porphyry stock, called the “Patton Porphyry” (PP), a member of the Casino Suite which intrudes mid-Cretaceous granitoids
of the Dawson Range Batholith (WRGD) and Paleozoic schists and gneisses (YM) of the YTT (Figure 7-6). Emplacement of the Patton Porphyry
dacite stock into the older rocks resulted in brecciation of both the intrusive rocks and the surrounding country rocks along the northern,
southern, and eastern contacts of the stock. Brecciation is best developed in the eastern boundary of the stock where the breccia zone
can be up to 400 m wide in plan view. To the west, along the north and south contacts, the breccias narrow gradually to less than 100
m. Drilling along the western end of the dacite stock has revealed a late, post-mineralization explosive breccia (MX) that has obliterated
the Patton Porphyry stock and any related contact breccia in this area. The late explosive breccia, likely a diatreme forms an elliptical
body over 300 m in width. It also occurs as narrow east – west trending dykes extending into the dacite stock and surrounding granitoids
and metamorphic rocks. The Patton Porphyry, intrusive breccias and late explosive breccias comprise the Casino Intrusive Complex, measuring
1.8 km by 1.0 km.
Patton Porphyry dykes extend west of
the deposit for several kilometres (Figure 7-6). Locally, these dykes are associated with breccia zones developed along their margins,
and are locally mineralized with pyrite, chalcopyrite and molybdenite as disseminations, veins, and fracture fillings.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 42 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-5: Property Geology (R.
Johnson, 2018)
On the northwest side of the Casino intrusive
complex, a swarm of Patton Porphyry dykes and related breccias have been identified. As of 2013, the dyke swarm was speculated to represent
the upper emanation of a buried satellite stock of the main Patton Porphyry stock. This hypothesis has not been substantiated to 2021.
Also, the “Northern Porphyry Zone” tested in 2020 did not establish the presence of a buried stock.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 43 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 7-6: Geology of the Casino
Deposit
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 44 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 7.3.1 | Hydrothermal Porphyry Alteration |
Crystallization and exsolution of hydrothermal
fluids from Patton Porphyry (PP) magmas produced porphyry style Cu-Mo-Au mineralization. Therefore, the Patton Porphyry, and associated
Intrusive Breccia (IX), is genetically related to the Cu-Mo-Au mineralization of the deposit.
Hydrothermal alteration at the Casino
property consists of a potassic core centered on and around the main Patton Porphyry body, in turn bordered by a contemporaneous, strongly
developed and fracture controlled phyllic zone, a weakly developed propylitic zone, and a secondary discontinuous argillic overprint.
Mineralized stockwork veins and breccias within the Casino Property are closely associated with the hydrothermal alteration. Potassic
alteration minerals include texturally destructive K-feldspar, biotite, magnetite, and quartz, with lesser hematite, purple anhydrite,
and gypsum. Biotite is mainly felted and pseudomorphic after hornblende. Locally, magnetite forms braided veinlets. In drill core, potassic
alteration is represented by dark brown to black biotite alteration and/or pink potassium feldspar (K-spar) alteration.
The texturally destructive phyllic zone
is found peripheral to, and locally overprinting, the potassic alteration zone. It has a distinctive ‘bleached’ appearance
and is locally structurally controlled. Phyllic alteration minerals include quartz, pyrite, sericite, muscovite (after biotite), and abundant
tourmaline, as well as minor hematite and/or magnetite towards the potassic zone. Quartz and sericite are typically alteration minerals
after potassic and plagioclase feldspars. Biotite alters to muscovite or titanite, and hornblende alters to chlorite, calcite, quartz,
and biotite. Tourmaline forms radiating disseminations and veinlets. Sulphide content is typically high, with pyrite ranging from 5-10%
throughout, as disseminated blebs or cores to quartz-bearing “D” veins.
Where intense phyllic alteration overprints
potassic alteration, relict textures are destroyed and minerals are recrystallized, commonly to equal portions of quartz, plagioclase,
and K-feldspar, and including up to 10 percent biotite, trace apatite and titanite. Strongly zoned plagioclase and locally kinked biotite
form subhedral laths, surrounded by K-feldspar, locally strained quartz, and biotite. The overall colour is pale pink.
Propylitic alteration is rare on surface
but forms a wide halo around the deposit in gradational contact with the inner potassic alteration. Alteration minerals include epidote,
chlorite, and calcite, with lesser carbonate, clay, sericite, pyrite, and albite. Hornblende and biotite are completely chloritized, whereas
feldspars are relatively fresh, and textures are generally well-preserved.
Secondary argillic alteration is closely
associated with the supergene zone and may appear locally as patches or pockets within the potassic and phyllic alteration zones. It is
poorly developed, appears bleached or pale green, contains abundant clays (kaolinite, montmorillonite) and local chlorite and/or carbonate.
In drill core, this unit may be recognized by distinctive “pock-marks” along the surface of the core.
The Casino deposit is not typical of
Andean/Arizonan porphyry copper deposits in which mineralization is characterized by a dense stockwork of veinlets. Within the Casino
deposit, mineralization occurs both as fine disseminations sensu stricto and in veinlets, with the highest concentrations occurring
as disseminations in the matrix of the Intrusive Breccia (IX) zones. Notably, there is an absence of early, high-temperature “A-veins.”
In a typical Andean/Arizonan porphyry, the onset of mineralization propagates through a magma “mush” resulting in multiple
veinlet-forming events as the magma cools. The final pulses permeate a cooled, fractured intrusive body, resulting in a dense stockwork
of multiple superimposed veinlet formational events, each with a distinctive mineralogy and formation. However, at the Casino deposit,
the Patton Porphyry had apparently already cooled prior to the main mineralizing event. The brecciation events allowed for subsequent
fluid movement into fractures within both the Patton Porphyry and Dawson Range intrusive rocks, but the highest grades generally occur
in the IX breccia (Williams, 2021); the overall vein density is relatively low. Re-interpretation by Rio Tinto concluded that multiple
events of brecciation occurred throughout the emplacement history of various pulses of Patton Porphyry, resulting in mineralizing events
both within the “Early Mineral Units” and “Intermediate Mineral Units.”
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 45 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 7.3.2 | Metallurgical Zoning |
The Casino deposit is unusual among Canadian
porphyry deposits as it has a substantially preserved outcropping gold-bearing oxidized “Leached Cap,” an upper well-developed
copper-gold enriched “Supergene Zone” and a lower copper-gold bearing “Hypogene Zone”. The Supergene Zone is comprised
of the Supergene Oxide (SOX) zone and the more extensive Supergene Sulphide (SUS) zone. Table 7-2 summarizes the main minerals identified
in the Leached Cap and Supergene zones.
| 7.3.2.1 | Leached Cap Mineralization (CAP) |
The Leached Cap is copper-depleted due
to leaching processes and has a lower specific gravity relative to the supergene zones. It averages 70 m in thickness and is characterized
by boxwork textures filled with jarosite, limonite, goethite, and hematite. This weathering has destroyed rock textures and has replaced
most primary minerals with clay. The resulting rock is pale gray to cream in colour and is friable to the touch, and the clay is commonly
stained yellow, orange, and/or brown by iron oxides. The weathering is most intense at the surface and decreases with depth. Whereas the
copper minerals were leached and copper in solution mobilized downward until deposited along a redox zone to form the supergene enriched
blanket, gold was significantly less mobile, resulting in significant gold grades remaining in the Leached Cap.
| 7.3.2.2 | Supergene Sulphide Mineralization (SUS) |
Supergene copper mineralization occurs
in a weathered zone up to 200 m deep, located below the Leached Cap and above the Hypogene zone. It has an average thickness of 60 m and
is positively correlated with high-grade hypogene mineralization, high permeability, and phyllic and/or outer potassic alteration. Grades
of the Supergene sulphide zone vary widely but are highest in fractured and strongly pyritic zones, given the elevated permeabilities
and high leaching capacity of these zones. Thus, secondary enrichment zones are thickest along contacts of the potassic and phyllic alteration
halos. Grain borders and fractures in chalcopyrite, bornite and tetrahedrite may be altered to chalcocite, digenite, and/or covellite.
Chalcocite also locally coats pyrite grains and clusters, and locally extends along fractures deep into the hypogene zone. Molybdenite
is largely unaffected by supergene processes, other than local alteration to ferrimolybdite.
In drill-core, the SUS zone is commonly
broken, with decreasing clay alteration and weathering with depth and is ‘stained’ dark blue to gray.
| 7.3.2.3 | Supergene Oxide Mineralization (SOX) |
The poorly defined Supergene Oxide zone
(SOX) is copper-enriched and hosts trace molybdenite. It occurs as a few perched bodies within the Leached Cap, likely due to more recent
fluctuations in the water table. This zone is thought to be related to present-day topography and is best developed where oxidation of
earlier secondary copper sulphides occurs above the water table, typically on well drained slopes. Where present, the Supergene Oxide
zone averages 10 m in thickness, locally contains chalcanthite, malachite and brocanthite, with minor azurite, tenorite, cuprite and neotocite.
Its contact is gradational into the more well-defined Supergene Sulphide zone.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 46 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 7-2: Leached Cap & Supergene
Minerals
| Zone |
Minerals Present |
Average Thickness |
| Leached Cap |
jarosite, goethite, hematite, ferrimolybdite |
70 m |
| Supergene Oxide |
chalcanthite, brochantite, malachite, azurite,
tenorite, cuprite, neotocite, copper WAD native copper,
copper-bearing goethite |
10 m |
| Supergene Sulphide |
digenite, chalcocite,
minor covellite, bornite,
copper-bearing goethite |
60 m |
| 7.3.3 | Hypogene Mineralization (HYP) |
Mineralization of the Casino Cu-Au-Mo
deposit occurs mainly in the steeply plunging, in-situ contact breccias surrounding the Patton Porphyry intrusive plug. It was formed
by crystallization and exsolution of hydrothermal fluids from late Cretaceous magmas of the Casino Plutonic Suite. The breccia forms an
ovoid band around the main porphyry body with dimensions up to 250 m and has an interior zone of potassic alteration surrounded by discontinuous
phyllic alteration, typical of some porphyry deposits.
Hypogene mineralization occurs throughout
the various alteration zones of the Casino Porphyry deposit, hosted by low-density veinlets, and disseminated in the matrix of breccias.
Field relationships show that the onset of potassic alteration is represented by mineralized quartz veins within the phyllically-altered
zones, which cut those of the potassically-altered zones. Rhenium-osmium (Re-Os) age dating showed that the timing of the potassic and
phyllic alteration are contemporaneous at around 74.4 ± 0.28 Ma. Significant Cu-Mo mineralization is related to the potassically-altered
breccias surrounding the core Patton Porphyry, as well as in the adjacent phyllically-altered host rocks of the Dawson Range Batholith.
Mineralization in the potassic zone comprises
mainly finely disseminated pyrite, chalcopyrite and molybdenite, as well as trace sphalerite and bornite. The phyllic alteration zones
have increased gold, copper, molybdenite and tungsten values concentrated within disseminations and veinlets of pyrite, chalcopyrite and/or
molybdenite along the inner part of the pyrite halo. The pyrite halo occurs within the phyllic alteration zone along the potassic-phyllic
contact and discontinuously surrounds the main breccia body. It is host to the highest copper values on the property.
Chalcopyrite commonly occurs in veinlets,
as disseminations, and as irregular patches. Within breccia zones and granodiorite west of the Casino Fault, disseminated chalcopyrite
is more abundant than vein and veinlet-style chalcopyrite, whereas to the east of the fault, chalcopyrite is controlled by brittle deformation
and occurs in fractures and open space fillings. Pyrite to chalcopyrite ratios range from less than 2:1 in the core of the deposit, to
greater than 20:1 in the outer phyllic zones. Locally, coarse-grained bornite and tetrahedrite are intergrown with chalcopyrite.
Molybdenite is not generally intergrown
with other sulphides and occurs as selvages in early, high-temperature, quartz veinlets with potassic-alteration halos and as discrete
flakes and disseminations.
Native gold occurs as free grains (50
to 70 microns) in quartz and as inclusions in pyrite and/or chalcopyrite grains (1 to 15 microns). High-grade smoky quartz veins
with numerous specks of visible gold have been reported but are rare, and do not contribute significantly to the gold inventory of the
deposit.
Overall, the copper, gold, and molybdenum
grades are not sympathetic to each other suggesting that, at least in part, each metal is distinguished by its own hydrothermal event.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 47 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Late-stage, commonly vuggy, polymetallic
veins, similar to the Bomber Vein, extend along roughly parallel, steeply dipping fractures trending 150° to 170°. Metallic mineralogy
includes abundant sphalerite and galena, with less abundant tetrahedrite, chalcopyrite (commonly intergrown with tetrahedrite), and bismuth-bearing
minerals, and are geochemically anomalous in any or all of Ag, As, Bi, Cu, Cd, Mn, Pb, Sb, Zn and locally W.
In drill-core, the hypogene zone is unweathered
and unoxidized. Figure 7-7 is a cross section of the deposit showing the main metallurgical zones.
Figure 7-7: Casino Property Geology
- Cross Section
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 48 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 7.3.4 | Structurally Hosted Gold Mineralization |
Structurally controlled gold mineralization
within the Canadian Creek portion of the Casino property occurs mostly in the northwestern part of the property. Drilling in 2009 and
2017 discovered widespread anomalous gold mineralization associated with clay altered-shears, sheeted pyrite veins and quartz-carbonate
veins hosted in both intrusive and metamorphic rocks. To date, the identified structures are generally less than 3 m thick and of short
strike length. Gold is accompanied by silver, arsenic, antimony, molybdenum, barium, and bismuth.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 49 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
8
Deposit Types
The Casino deposit is best classified
as a calc-alkalic porphyry deposit associated with a dacitic intrusive stock (the Patton Porphyry). Primary copper, gold and molybdenum
mineralization was deposited from hydrothermal fluids in the matrix of the contact breccias as well as fractures in wall rocks. Higher
grades occur in the contact breccias, and grades gradually decrease away from the contact zone, both towards the centre of the stock and
outward into the host granitoids and schists. A general zoning of the primary sulphides occurs, with chalcopyrite and molybdenite occurring
in the core dacite and breccias, grading outward into pyrite-dominated mineralization in the surrounding granitoids and schists. Alteration
accompanying the sulphide mineralization consists of an earlier phase of potassic alteration and a later overprinting of phyllic alteration.
The potassic alteration typically comprises secondary biotite and K-feldspar as pervasive replacement and includes veins and stockworks
of quartz and anhydrite veinlets. Phyllic alteration consists of replacements and veinlet-style sericite and silicification.
The Casino Copper deposit is unusual
amongst Canadian porphyry copper deposits in having a well-developed enriched secondary supergene blanket of copper mineralization. This
is similar to those found in deposits in Chile, including the Escondita deposit, and the Morenci Deposit in the southwest United States.
Unlike other porphyry deposits in Canada, the Casino deposit’s enriched supergene copper blanket was not eroded by the glacial action
of ice sheets during the last ice age. At Casino, weathering during the Tertiary Period leached most of the copper from the upper 70 m
of the deposit and re-deposited it lower in the deposit, forming the Supergene Sulphide zone. This resulted in a layer-like sequence
comprising an upper leached zone, where all sulphide minerals have been oxidized and copper mostly removed leaving a bleached, iron-oxide
leached cap containing residual gold. Beneath the leached cap is a zone up to 100 m thick of secondary copper mineralization, consisting
primarily of chalcocite and minor covellite. The copper grades of the enriched, blanket-like zone are up to twice that of the underlying,
unweathered hypogene zone hosting primary copper mineralization. Primary mineralization consists of pyrite, chalcopyrite and lesser molybdenite.
The primary copper mineralization is persistent at depth, extending to more than 600 m of vertical depth, which is beneath the deepest
drill holes completed to date.
The Casino deposit also differs from
typical Andean/Arizonan porphyry copper deposits, in which mineralization is characterized by a dense stockwork of veinlets. Within the
Casino deposit, mineralization occurs both as fine disseminations and within a low density of veinlets, with the highest concentrations
occurring within the matrix of the Intrusive Breccia zones surrounding the central Patton Porphyry intrusion. In a typical Andean/Arizonan
porphyry, the onset of mineralization propagates through a magma “mush” resulting in multiple veinlet-forming events as the
magma cools. The final pulses permeate a cooled, fractured intrusive body, resulting in a dense stockwork of multiple superimposed veinlet-formational
events, each with a distinctive mineralogy. However, at the Casino deposit, the Patton Porphyry had apparently already cooled prior to
the main mineralizing event, the latter manifesting as the IX breccia containing clasts of both the Patton Porphyry and the Dawson Range
Batholith. The brecciation event allowed for subsequent fluid movement into both sets of intrusive rocks but resulted in the highest grades
occurring in the IX breccia. Re-interpretation of select drill core concluded that multiple events of brecciation occurred throughout
the emplacement history of various phases of Patton Porphyry resulting in superposed mineralizing events during the Patton Porphyry emplacement
history.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 50 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 9.1 | Exploration Procedures Prior to 2021 |
The history of exploration on the property
includes prospecting, geological mapping, multi-element soil geochemical sampling, magnetic and Induced Polarization (IP) surveying, trenching
and diamond and reverse-circulation drilling. Drilling will be discussed in Section 10.
A Titan TM Geophysical survey was carried
out by Quantec Geoscience Limited of Toronto, Ontario in 2009, to search for potential deeply buried porphyry mineralization beneath or
peripheral to the Casino deposit. The survey utilized Titan-24 Galvanic Direct Current Resistivity and Induced Polarization (DC/IP) surveys
as well as a Magnetotelluric Tensor Resistivity (MT) survey over the entire grid. Magnetotelluric Resistivity surveys result in high resolution
and deep penetration (to 1 km), whereas the Titan DC Resistivity & Induced Polarization surveys provide reasonable depth coverage
to 750 m. The survey grid, covering a 2.4 km by 2.4 km area, was centered on the Casino deposit. The grid comprised nine 2.4 km long lines,
spaced 300 metres apart, at an azimuth of approximately 064°, perpendicular to the Casino Creek Fault. Results of the Titan survey
were used by Quantec to identify a series of drill targets within the survey grid and adjacent to the known mineralization. A total of
10 holes, comprising 4,327 m, were drilled to test geophysical targets. With the exception of several distal Pb-Zn veins and arsenopyrite-rich
veins intercepted during this drilling, no porphyry copper mineralization was found.
To the west of the Casino deposit, on
the recently acquired Canadian Creek Property, exploration utilized grid soil sampling, ground magnetic and IP surveys to generate targets
for trenching and drilling. Initially, the focus of the geochemical and geophysical surveys was to locate porphyry copper mineralization.
Subsequent to 2016, the focus of this work switched to the identification of gold mineralization similar to that discovered at the nearby
Coffee Creek project (Johnston, 2018).
Soil geochemical sampling surveys, to
the west of the Casino Deposit, were carried out from the mid 1990s through to 2011. The soil surveys targeted mainly B horizon soils,
but due to local talus cover and permafrost, sampling of the B horizon was not always possible. Soil samples underwent multi-element and
gold analysis, mostly at Acme Analytical Labs Vancouver, using ICP methods and fire assay with atomic absorption finish for gold. The
historical soil grids utilized a 200-metre line spacing and sampling spacings that ranged from 25 m to 75 m. Locally, infill sampling
to define Au and As anomalies from the original grids was done at a 100-metre line spacing and a 25-metre station spacing. Soil geochemical
results show a coincident Cu-Au anomaly at the 50 ppm Cu and 15 ppb Au threshold levels respectively, extending approximately 3 km west
from the western limits of the Casino deposit. Copper values are shown in Figure 9-1. This coincident Cu-Au anomaly has been tested by
16 core holes. The holes closest to the Casino Deposit revealed moderate potassic alteration and strong propylitic alteration. The four
closest holes intersected zones of leached cap or incipient leaching, weak supergene enrichment, and hypogene copper-gold-molybdenum mineralization
typical of the outer edges of a porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum deposit. Copper grades are in the 300 - 700 ppm (0.03% to 0.07%) range,
gold grades range from 0.1 g/t to 0.3 g/t, and molybdenum values range from 20 - 40 ppm (0.002% to 0.004%). There is a progressive eastward
increase in Cu, Au, and Mo grades in the Casino B drill holes towards the Casino deposit. Results from these holes define the western
limits of the Casino deposit system.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 51 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-1: Copper and Gold in soil
results (Johnson, 2018)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 52 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Elsewhere, the soil results identified
a number of areas of anomalous Au, As and Bi. These anomalies were explored further with trenching, core drilling and reverse circulation
drilling. This work identified scattered narrow zones of gold mineralization associated with clay-altered shears, sheeted pyrite veins
and quartz-carbonate veins, hosted both in intrusive and metamorphic rocks. With few exceptions, gold grades in the structures are sub-1.0
g/t (1,000 ppb). The structures identified to date are mainly less than 3 m thick and of short strike length.
Ground magnetic surveying at a line spacing
of 100 m was undertaken over the Canadian Creek portion in 2011 and 2017. The surveys detected a number of lineaments, oriented mostly
northwest-southeast, though none obviously align with the soil geochemical anomalies. A plot of the un-levelled magnetic survey results
of the property is shown in Figure 9-2. The ground magnetic data shows a trend of magnetic high features extending from the Casino Deposit
through the Ana Zone area to the Koffee Bowl area. This west-southwest trend follows the trend of Patton Porphyry dykes extending from
the main intrusive complex.
Induced polarization (IP) surveys were
carried out in 1993, 1996, 2009 and 2011. The 1993 and 1996 surveys used a pole-dipole array with a spacing of 75 m and an N1 to N4 depth
profile. The 2009 survey was a pole-dipole survey using an a spacing of 25 m and an N1 to N6 depth profile. The 2011 pole dipole survey
used a spacing of 25 m and an N1 to N8 profile. The surveys mainly utilized small “n” spacings resulting in limited depth
profiles. The survey identified a number of high chargeability anomalies which remain to be tested. A compilation of the results is shown
in Figure 9-3.
The 2021 program comprised regularly
spaced reconnaissance soil geochemical sampling, re-analysis of select core from 1992 through 2020 and all 2021 core utilizing “Enersoft
Inc’s “GeologiAI” (Artificial Intelligence) instrument, and completion of a diamond drilling program comprising 6,074.97
metres in 22 holes, including 8 geotechnical holes for 1,957 metres. “Televiewer” and piezometer surveying was also done on
the geotechnical holes. Seven additional geotechnical holes were drilled to test ground conditions for proposed construction of the Tailings
Management Facility (TMF), the heap-leach facility and mineral processing facilities. Drilling will be discussed in Section 10.1.6.
Camp and logistical management, including
fixed wing and heli-support, was contracted to High Altitude Construction of Whitehorse, Yukon. Kluane Diamond Drilling of Whitehorse,
Yukon, completed the main diamond drilling program. For the eight geotechnical holes, televiewer surveying was done subsequent to core
drilling by DGI Geoscience Inc. of Toronto, Ontario. This was followed by piezometer surveying done by TetraTech EBA Inc. based in Whitehorse,
Yukon. Geotechnical holes targeting proposed milling, heap leaching and tailings facilities were completed by Kluane Drilling and supervised
by Knight-Piesold Consulting of Vancouver, British Columbia.
A reconnaissance-style soil geochemical
sampling program was completed in 2021. This program involved B-Horizon soil sampling on an evenly spaced 200-metre spaced grid, covering
previously unsampled areas east and south of the Casino deposit. A total of 2,502 samples were obtained (Figure 9-2). All soil samples
underwent preliminary X-ray Diffraction (XRF) analysis utilizing a portable unit encased within a protective chamber to prevent radiation
leakage. Preliminary XRF analysis was done for Cu, Mo, As, Pb, Sr and for Cu: Zn and Cu: Mo ratios. The XRF results were considered sufficiently
reliable to determine anomalous zones per element.
By mid-August, three Cu anomalies were
identified from XRF results (Figure 9-3), and were considered robust enough to warrant diamond drilling, which was done later in 2021
(Section 10.1.6). The sampling program was still underway at the time of XRF data compilation, resulting in incomplete data coverage,
compared to that for assay results. Three further anomalies, D, E and F, were identified from lab analytical results.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 53 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-4 through Figure 9-8 show ranges
of analytical results for Cu, Mo, Au, Ag, and As, respectively. Assay results for Cu from soil geochemical sampling confirmed XRF results
identifying Anomalies A and C. Anomaly B was less well defined from assay results (Figure 9-4). Assay results also indicated two other
areas of elevated Cu values: Anomaly D, at the extreme northeastern tip of the survey; and Anomaly E, along the northwest side of Canadian
Creek at the northwestern survey margin (Figure 9-4).
High Cu values for Anomaly A show a strong
correlation with Au, Ag and As, but not Cu, indicating this is unlikely to represent a porphyry-style target. The Cu-Au-Ag-As signature
is more representative of outlying bonanza vein or epithermal-style mineralization, or structurally controlled mineralization, which tend
to be less Cu-enriched. The anomaly extends downslope to the southwest, with highest values of all elements occurring towards the
base of slope.
Figure 9-2: Layout of 2021 Soil Sampling
Program
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 54 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-3: Cu assay values from
on-site XRF analysis (Rio Tinto)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 55 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-4: Cu assay ranges, 2021
soil sampling program, Casino Project (Image: Wolfbear Consulting)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 56 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-5: Mo assay ranges, 2021
soil sampling program, Casino Project (Image: Wolfbear Consulting)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 57 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-6: Au assay ranges, 2021
soil sampling program, Casino Project (Image: Wolfbear Consulting)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 58 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-7: Ag assay ranges, 2021
soil sampling program, Casino Project (Image: Wolfbear Consulting)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 59 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-8: As assay ranges, 2021
soil sampling program, Casino Project (Image: Wolfbear Consulting)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 60 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
At Anomaly
B, laboratory analytical results for Cu (Figure 9-4) are more subdued compared to those from XRF analysis (Figure 9-4). Elevated Cu results
show a weak correlation with Au and Ag values, and essentially no correlation with Mo. The anomaly covers the northern portion of an extensive
As anomaly (Figure 9-8), which may represent a broad area of enrichment, rather than one specifically associated with the Cu anomaly.
At Anomaly
C, lab analytical results for Cu from its southern portion supported XRF results, although less so in its northern portion. Elevated Cu
results show a strong correlation with As, a moderate correlation with Mo, and little to no correlation with Au and Ag. The elevated Cu,
Mo and As values form part of a continuous east-west trending band of Cu, Mo and As enrichment, with a weak Ag and negligible Au correlation.
The strongly defined Cu values from XRF analysis in its northern part are less pronounced from lab analysis. Anomaly C may cover a portion
of the continuous Cu-Mo-As enriched band, rather than a discreet anomaly.
At Anomaly
D, Cu values in the 98th percentile in its the western part are associated with 98th percentile Au (Figure 9-6)
and Ag (Figure 9-7) values, elevated values of As (Figure 9-8) but near-background values of Mo (Figure 9-5). Elevated As values represent
the northeast limit of sampling of a more extensive trend, extending northeast from the deposit area. Portions of this trend also show
notable Au and Ag enrichment, although this is not significantly enriched in Cu and Mo. The Au-Ag-As trend is roughly parallel to local
drainage and topographic features, which in turn may be marking structural features.
Anomaly
E comprises moderately elevated Cu values (Figure 9-4) from lab analysis, supporting on-site XRF results. The anomaly also comprises high
Au, Ag and As values (Figure 9-6 to Figure 9-8). The anomaly covers the west flank of the Canadian Creek valley, on the opposite side
of the stream from the Casino deposit. Casino Creek marks a sharp eastern terminus for anomalous metal values, indicating an upslope source
to the west. The west boundary of the anomalous area is also the western limit of surveying marking the boundary of the Casino block.
However, the Cu-Au-Ag anomaly likely extends farther west onto the Canadian Creek block, now 100% held by Western.
Anomaly
F, southeast of Anomaly A, shows moderately elevated Cu values (Figure 9-4) with a strong correlation to Mo and Au values (Figure 9-5
and Figure 9-6). Figure 9-7 indicates a moderate correlation with Ag as well, although this is partially masked by a halo of elevated
Ag values surrounding the Bomber Vein area. No significant correlation occurs with As. The geochemical signature, centered on a topographically
elevated area, is the most indicative of a second potential porphyry centre, compared to Anomalies A through E.
The
east-west trending As anomaly is not precisely marked by a similar Mo-Cu anomaly, but the aerial extent and locations are similar. High
As values show only a very weak correlation with Ag, and a very weak and inconclusive association with Au.
| 9.2.2 | Enersoft “AI” Analysis |
In 2021, “GeologicAI” scanning
instrumentation by Enersoft Inc. of Calgary, Alberta (Figure 9-9), was utilized on site to scan select core from 1992 through 2020 and
all 2021 core. Scanning involved chemical XRF analysis, hyperspectral analysis for alteration and mineralization, including sulphide mineral,
identification, “Light Detection and Ranging” (LiDAR) textural mapping, and high-resolution photography (Figure 9-10). The
purpose was to establish consistency of scanned data across all drilling programs from 1992 through 2021. A total of 48,673 metres of
core were scanned in 2021, comprising slightly over 40% of the total amount drilled from 1992 through 2020.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 61 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-9: "GeologicAI"
Scanning Apparatus (Enersoft Inc.)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 62 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 9-10: An example of Hyperspectral
Scanning results, 2021 Drilling, Casino project
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 63 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Targets of early diamond and reverse-circulation
drilling on the Casino Deposit were based mainly on coincident copper and molybdenum-in-soil anomalies. Since 1993, with the exception
of a Titan TM Survey, exploration in the vicinity of the Casino deposit has comprised drilling on a grid pattern using a core drill of
NQ and NTW thickness, with a smaller number of holes drilled with HQ diameter core. The earlier soil sampling and geophysical survey anomalies,
in the vicinity of the Casino Deposit, have all been tested by drilling and shown to be caused by porphyry copper-related mineralization.
The following sections describe the various
drilling programs developed on the Casino Property.
| 10.1 | 1992-1994 Drilling Program |
Drilling prior to 1992 (Figure 10-1)
comprised reverse circulation drilling and NQ-diameter diamond drilling. There is little documentation that specifically focused on this
early drilling, its specifications, or challenges. Drilling following the acquisition of Casino Silver Mines Ltd. by Archer Cathro and
Associates, then by PSG, is well documented.
The drilling campaigns from 1992 through
1994, (Figure 10-2) were contracted to E. Caron Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon. Up to six diamond drills were utilized. The 1994 drilling
program fulfilled a variety of purposes: infill and delineation drilling, and geotechnical, structural, and waste rock characterization.
Infill drilling involved a program of angle and vertical holes designed to outline and define more fully the Leached Cap (Oxide Gold zone)
and Supergene copper zones. Delineation drilling to the north, northeast, east and southeast outlined the extent of the deposit area.
Four oriented angle holes were drilled into the deposit area for geotechnical information, primarily rock strength and structural characteristics,
and for geological information regarding vein-set orientations. Five vertical holes targeted peripheral areas of the deposit for waste
rock characterization studies. Seven vertical holes were drilled into the peripheral areas of the deposit for geotechnical information.
Eighteen vertical holes were drilled outside the deposit area for geotechnical and geological information regarding potential site development.
The combined drilling from 1992 through
1994 comprised 71,437.59 m of NQ and HQ core in 236 holes. Core recoveries were consistently in the 80% to 90% range in the Leached Cap
and Supergene zones and 90% to 100% in the Hypogene zone.
The 1992 to 1994 collar co-ordinates
(northing, easting, and elevation) were surveyed using a total station Nikon C-100 system. Surveying of the 1992 and 1993 drill holes
was done by Lamerton & Associates. The 1994 holes were surveyed by Z. Peter, Surveyor from Burnaby, B.C.
Drilling can be carried out at Casino
from mid-May through September under summertime conditions, although some heating of water lines may be necessary from early September
onwards. Drilling can also occur in March and April, and October and early November, although these would entail wintertime conditions
and the necessity of winter drilling equipment and heating of water lines. The use of a water supply truck would be necessary during very
cold weather conditions, due to freezing of water lines. Three reliable water supply sites exist on the property.
| 10.2 | 2008 to 2012 Drilling |
From 2008 through 2012 Western Copper
and Gold Corp. (Western) continued the drilling pattern established by PSG, utilizing mainly a vertical drill hole orientation and a nominal
100 m grid spacing (Figure 10-3). Later in this series of programs, Western drilled a series of inclined holes in the northern part of
the deposit. Several inclined holes were also drilled in the western deposit area to establish contacts with the post-mineral explosion
breccia (MX) and to confirm orientation of the interpreted N-S structure.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 64 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The 2008 to 2012 drilling programs were
contracted to Kluane Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon, utilizing up to three hydraulic diamond drills. Water for the drilling was pumped
from the Canadian Creek bend, at the location of the old placer camp (which has undergone renewed placer mining commencing in 2019), and
from Casino Creek.
Drilling was carried out from March through
November, although drilling from March to early May, and October and November required winter-adapted drilling equipment. The main challenges
during the winter drilling were water supply, due to the low water level in both creeks, and the freezing of long water lines.
All drilling was done using “thin
wall” drill rods. Holes CAS-001 to CAS-007 utilized HTW-size rods (core diameter 70.92 mm) and the remainder of the drilling was
done utilizing primarily NTW core size (core diameter 56.00 mm). Deeper holes were collared using HTW rods and reduced to NTW rods typically
from 200 m to 300 m of depth. In a few cases, holes were reduced further to BTW core size (core diameter 42.00 mm). Core recoveries in
the Leached Cap and Supergene zones were consistently in the 80% to 90% range and 90% to 100% in the Hypogene zone.
Down-hole orientation surveying was performed
by Yukon Engineering Services of Whitehorse, Yukon, using an Icefield Tools MI3 Multishot Digital Borehole Survey Tool for holes CAS-002
to CAS-076. For holes CAS-077 to CAS-092, as well as the geotechnical and hydrogeological holes, a Reflex Instruments downhole survey
instrument was used.
A 2010 geostatistical study indicated
that the 100-metre spacing was sufficient for delineation of supergene mineralization, but only marginally sufficient for delineation
of hypogene copper mineralization.
Drilling during the 2013 field season
was contracted to Kluane Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon. Up to two hydraulic diamond drills were used for this program.
Drilling in 2013 was primarily for water
wells and hydrogeological purposes. Each hole was fully logged by core loggers, but no samples were taken. Eleven holes (MW13-01D/S through
MW13-06D/S) were drilled throughout June and another fifteen (DH13-01 through DH13-12) were completed during August. See Figure 10-4 and
Figure 10-5 for detailed locations of drilling.
The 2013 drill collars were surveyed
by CAP Engineering from Whitehorse. CAP used a Stonex GPS RTK Unit and a Topcon GPS RTK Unit to complete the surveys. These results were
reported in UTM NAD83, Zone 7 coordinates.
No diamond drilling was completed on
the property from 2014 through to the end of 2018.
Between May and October of 2019, Kluane
Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon, completed a 13,590-metre diamond drilling program in 72 core holes (DH 19-01 through DH 19-53, CRD
19-54 through CRD 19-59 and DH 19-60 through DH 19-69) on the Casino Property, using up to two hydraulic diamond drills. The purpose of
the 2019 drill program was to infill the previous drill hole spacing, in order to upgrade the resource estimate for the deposit.
All drill holes in 2019 were of NTW core
size (core diameter 56.00 mm) with the exception of several holes in difficult ground that were collared with HTW core size (core diameter
70.92 mm) and reduced to NTW when drilling conditions improved. Water was pumped from the Canadian Creek bend, from Casino Creek, and
from several small ponds in the property area. Core recoveries were consistently in the 75% to 80% range within the Leached Cap, 80% to
90% within the Supergene zones and 90% to 100% within the Hypogene zone. Down-hole orientation surveying was performed using a DeviShot
Magnetic Multishot survey tool. Each drillhole was surveyed on 30-50 m increments by the Kluane drilling team.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 65 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
All holes were logged, sampled, and photographed
by geologists on site before samples were sent to ALS Global (ALS) in Whitehorse for analysis. A total of 20% of those pulps from ALS
were randomly selected and sent on to SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) in Vancouver for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) check analysis.
CAP Engineering, of Whitehorse, Yukon
was on site for 2 days in late August to survey the drill hole collars. A team of two people used a Stonex GPS RTK Unit and a Topcon GPS
RTK Unit to complete the surveys. Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5 show detailed locations of the drill holes.
Between June and September of 2020, Kluane
Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon, drilled a total of 12,008 metres in 49 core holes (DDH20-01 through DDH20-49) on the Casino Property,
utilizing up to three hydraulic drill rigs.
The majority of holes in 2020 comprised
NTW core with the exception of some holes in difficult ground that were collared with HTW core and reduced to NTW when drilling conditions
improved. Several NTW core holes were reduced to BTW core (where difficult rock conditions were encountered.
Core recoveries were consistently in
the 75% to 90% range within the Leached Cap, 80% to 100% within the Supergene zones and 90% to 100% within the Hypogene zone. Down-hole
orientation surveying was performed using a DeviShot Magnetic Multishot survey tool. Each drillhole was surveyed on 30 m to 50 m increments
by the Kluane drilling team.
CAP Engineering, of Whitehorse, Yukon
surveyed the drill hole collars, using a Stonex GPS RTK Unit and a Topcon GPS RTK Unit to complete the surveys. These results were reported
in UTM NAD83, Zone 7 coordinates. See Figure 10-6 for a detailed location of the drill holes.
By the end of the 2019 program, three
major zones were interpreted: 1) the “Gold Zone”, an arcuate zone along the southern and western deposit boundaries and hosting
the majority of previous short high-grade gold intercepts; 2) the “North Porphyry Zone”, extending north and northwest of
the main deposit; and 3) the “Canadian Zone” immediately west of the deposit. The 2020 program tested the continuity of porphyry
mineralization at the “North Zone”, attempted to confirm the roughly east-west oriented “Gold Zone”, and investigated
the continuity of the “Canadian Zone” .
All holes were logged, sampled, and photographed
by geologists at the camp site before samples were sent to ALS Global (ALS) in Whitehorse for analysis, with 5% of those pulps from ALS
randomly selected and sent on to Bureau Veritas Canada Inc. (BV) in Vancouver for QA/QC check analysis.
Drilling results in 2020 indicate the
eastern area of the “Gold Zone” hosts an area of higher-grade Cu-Au mineralization, now termed the “Deposit Core”
(Table 10-1) (Williams, 2021). Several holes returned CuEq values over widths significantly exceeding deposit averages. However, no further
high-grade intercepts were returned from the “Gold Zone,” which is no longer considered a discrete mineralized horizon. High-grade
intercepts were also determined not to be significant contributors to the mineral resource base at the Casino deposit.
At the Canadian Zone, Cu and Au values
somewhat increase towards the northern limit marked by Canadian Creek. The Canadian Zone has been re-named the “Casino West”
zone. Results from the North Porphyry Zone show a progressive northward decrease in Cu and Au values, essentially negating potential for
a second porphyry centre in this area.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 66 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 10-1 lists the location per zone
of the 2020 holes. Results of 2020 drilling are incorporated into this Feasibility Study.
Table 10-1: Summary of drill targets
in 2020
| Sector |
2020 Drill holes |
| System Core (4 holes) |
DH20-05, -08, -27, -45 |
| “Gold Zone” (14 holes) |
DH20-01, -02, -10, -12, -13, -17, -18, -20, -22, -24, -25, -29, -32, -35 |
| Northern Porphyry (13 holes) |
DH20-03, -04, -05, -07, -09, -11, -15, -42, -44, -45, -47, -48, -49 |
| Western Sector (7 holes) |
DH20-33, -34, -37, -38, -39, -41, -43 |
| Casino West (Canadian) (8 holes) |
DH20-14, -16, -19, -21, -23, -26, -28, -30 |
| Ana Zone (3 holes) |
DH20-31, -36, -40 |
Source: Williams, 2021
Between June and September of 2021, Kluane
Drilling Ltd. of Whitehorse, Yukon, drilled a total of 6,074.97 metres in 22 core holes (DDH20-01 through DDH20-49) on the Casino Property
utilizing up to three hydraulic drill rigs. Water for the drilling was pumped from the Canadian Creek bend, from Casino Creek, and from
several small ponds in the property area.
In 2021, four categories of diamond drilling
were employed, as follows:
Resource Confirmation Drilling: 5 holes
for 1,483 m
Metallurgical Drilling: 3 holes for
1,001 m
Geotechnical Drilling (Deposit area):
8 holes for 1,957 m
Exploration Drilling: 6 holes for
1,634 m
The majority of the Resource Confirmation,
Geotechnical and Exploration holes were collared using HTW core (core diameter: 70.92 m), with some holes reduced to NTW core (core diameter
56.00 m) depending on rock conditions. Metallurgical drilling utilized PQ core (core diameter 85.00 m) to facilitate a larger sample size
for metallurgical testing. The Metallurgical, Geotechnical and Resource Confirmation holes were collared mainly at the Deposit Core or
along the eastern, northern, and southern periphery of the Casino deposit. Drilling results were not incorporated into this feasibility
study.
All 2021 core underwent geotechnical
and geological logging as well as scanning by the Enersoft “GeologicAI” instrument on site. The “Geotechnical”
holes were drilled using “Split Tube” (also known as “Triple Tube”) coring equipment, and underwent “Televiewer”
surveying, which included down-hole optical, acoustical, and gamma-ray surveying. This was followed by piezometer surveying, designed
to determine groundwater conditions per hole. To facilitate the piezometer, the holes were grouted, the instruments were lowered to their
respective depths, and the holes were then cemented, sealing the piezometers in place. Televiewer surveying was done by DGI Geoscience
Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, and piezometer surveying was done by TetraTech EBA Inc. based in Whitehorse, Yukon.
Core recoveries were consistently in
the 75% to 90% range within the Leached Cap, 80% to 100% within the Supergene zones and 90% to 100% within the Hypogene zone. Down-hole
orientation surveying was performed using a DeviShot Magnetic Multishot survey tool. Each drillhole was surveyed on 30 m to 50 m increments
by the Kluane drilling team.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 67 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Challenger Geomatics, of Whitehorse,
Yukon was on site for 2 days in September 2021 to survey the drill hole collars. A team of two people used a Stonex GPS RTK Unit and a
Topcon GPS RTK Unit to complete the surveys. See Table 10-2 and Figure 10-7 for a detailed location of the drill holes, and Table
10-3 for significant intercepts.
Table 10-2: 2021 Drill Collar data
| Drill hole |
Proposed hole |
UTM East |
UTM North |
Elevation |
Azimuth |
Dip |
Final Depth (m) |
| DDH 21-01 |
CAS21_RES_A |
611065 |
6958785 |
1238 |
225 |
-60 |
352.04 |
| DDH 21-02 |
CAS21_RES_C |
611100 |
6958375 |
1288 |
315 |
-60 |
350.22 |
| DDH 21-03 |
CAS21_RES_B |
611220 |
6958506 |
1253 |
195 |
-60 |
228.60 |
| DDH 21-04 |
CAS21_MET_A |
610940 |
6958340 |
1358 |
35 |
-60 |
350.52 |
| DDH 21-05 |
CAS21_RES_D |
610890 |
6958220 |
1391 |
240 |
-60 |
300.23 |
| DDH 21-06 |
CAS21_MET_B |
610971 |
6958746 |
1251 |
215 |
-60 |
324.61 |
| DDH 21-07 |
CAS21_MET_C |
611430 |
6958705 |
1178 |
170 |
-55 |
326.14 |
| DDH 21-08 |
CAS21_RES_E |
611520 |
6958670 |
1169 |
60 |
-60 |
252.98 |
| DDH 21-09 |
CAS21_GTH_E |
611510 |
6958620 |
1162 |
100 |
-60 |
225.55 |
| DDH 21-10 |
CAS21_GTH_F |
611430 |
6958530 |
1165 |
220 |
-55 |
202.69 |
| DDH 21-11 |
CAS21_GTH_C |
610860 |
6958310 |
1368 |
240 |
-60 |
251.46 |
| DDH 21-12 |
CAS21_EXP_K |
611200 |
6959465 |
1323 |
45 |
-75 |
326.14 |
| DDH 21-13 |
CAS21_GTH_A |
611020 |
6958450 |
1349 |
140 |
-60 |
300.23 |
| DDH 21-14 |
CAS21_EXP_H |
612100 |
6958660 |
1136 |
225 |
-60 |
350.52 |
| DDH 21-15 |
CAS21_GTH_B |
610850 |
6958650 |
1320 |
260 |
-60 |
225.55 |
| DDH-21-16 |
CAS21_EXP_F |
612350 |
6958250 |
1089 |
215 |
-60 |
300.23 |
| DDH-21-17 |
CAS21_GTH_D |
611145 |
6958640 |
1256 |
55 |
-60 |
300.23 |
| DDH-21-18 |
CAS21_EXP_N |
612700 |
6958500 |
1171 |
225 |
-60 |
254.51 |
| DDH-21-19 |
CAS21_EXP_O |
613900 |
6954800 |
1060 |
315 |
-60 |
251.46 |
| DDH-21-20 |
CAS21_GTH_G |
610860 |
6958310 |
1368 |
240 |
-60 |
248.41 |
| DDH-21-21 |
CAS21_EXP_P |
611700 |
6954700 |
910 |
135 |
-60 |
150.88 |
| DDH-21-22 |
CAS21_GTH-H |
611430 |
6958530 |
1165 |
220 |
-55 |
202.99 |
Table 10-3: Significant Intercepts,
2021 Diamond Drilling Program
| Hole |
Zone3 |
From
(m) |
To
(m) |
Width2
(m) |
Cu
(%) |
Au
(g/t) |
Ag
(g/t) |
Mo
(%) |
CuEq1
(%) |
| DDH21-01 |
All |
0.50 |
352.04 |
351.54 |
0.17 |
0.21 |
0.99 |
0.027 |
0.45 |
| |
Cap |
0.50 |
57.25 |
56.75 |
0.07 |
0.15 |
0.98 |
0.035 |
0.33 |
| |
SUP |
57.25 |
177.98 |
120.73 |
0.28 |
0.26 |
1.11 |
0.038 |
0.65 |
| |
HYP |
177.98 |
352.04 |
174.06 |
0.13 |
0.20 |
0.91 |
0.017 |
0.36 |
| DDH21-02 |
All |
5.20 |
350.22 |
345.02 |
0.20 |
0.45 |
3.06 |
0.038 |
0.74 |
| |
CAP |
5.20 |
109.93 |
104.73 |
0.01 |
0.47 |
3.92 |
0.010 |
0.46 |
| |
Including |
88.10 |
91.10 |
3.00 |
0.00 |
5.20 |
9.23 |
0.033 |
4.36 |
| |
SUP |
109.93 |
217.61 |
107.68 |
0.34 |
0.44 |
2.35 |
0.051 |
0.91 |
| |
HYP |
217.61 |
350.22 |
132.61 |
0.24 |
0.44 |
2.96 |
0.050 |
0.82 |
| DDH21-03 |
All |
0.00 |
228.60 |
228.60 |
0.10 |
0.21 |
2.36 |
0.026 |
0.40 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
115.54 |
115.54 |
0.01 |
0.20 |
1.39 |
0.039 |
0.34 |
| |
SUP |
115.54 |
228.60 |
113.06 |
0.19 |
0.22 |
3.34 |
0.012 |
0.45 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 68 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Hole |
Zone3 |
From
(m) |
To
(m) |
Width2
(m) |
Cu
(%) |
Au
(g/t) |
Ag
(g/t) |
Mo
(%) |
CuEq1
(%) |
| DDH21-04 |
All |
3.05 |
350.52 |
347.47 |
0.26 |
0.55 |
4.03 |
0.031 |
0.86 |
| |
CAP |
3.05 |
115.91 |
112.86 |
0.05 |
0.61 |
3.67 |
0.020 |
0.65 |
| |
SUP |
115.91 |
301.41 |
185.50 |
0.39 |
0.56 |
4.87 |
0.033 |
1.01 |
| |
HYP |
301.41 |
350.52 |
49.11 |
0.23 |
0.42 |
1.66 |
0.052 |
0.80 |
| DDH21-05 |
All |
3.05 |
300.23 |
297.18 |
0.16 |
0.37 |
1.98 |
0.013 |
0.53 |
| |
CAP |
3.05 |
82.00 |
78.95 |
0.04 |
0.49 |
2.23 |
0.008 |
0.48 |
| |
SUP |
82.00 |
159.82 |
77.82 |
0.21 |
0.38 |
2.21 |
0.015 |
0.59 |
| |
HYP |
159.82 |
300.23 |
140.41 |
0.21 |
0.30 |
1.72 |
0.015 |
0.53 |
| DDH21-06 |
All |
0.00 |
324.61 |
324.61 |
0.27 |
0.45 |
2.03 |
0.026 |
0.74 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
39.62 |
39.62 |
0.11 |
0.19 |
0.77 |
0.007 |
0.30 |
| |
SUP |
39.62 |
73.41 |
33.79 |
0.21 |
0.34 |
1.24 |
0.015 |
0.55 |
| |
HYP |
73.41 |
324.61 |
251.20 |
0.30 |
0.50 |
2.33 |
0.030 |
0.84 |
| |
Including |
115.41 |
151.41 |
36.00 |
0.71 |
0.86 |
2.17 |
0.035 |
1.55 |
| DDH21-07 |
All |
18.29 |
326.14 |
307.85 |
0.42 |
0.52 |
2.14 |
0.030 |
0.98 |
| |
CAP |
18.29 |
36.58 |
18.29 |
0.05 |
0.53 |
2.82 |
0.019 |
0.58 |
| |
SUP |
36.58 |
326.14 |
289.56 |
0.45 |
0.52 |
2.10 |
0.031 |
1.01 |
| |
Including |
117.72 |
123.72 |
6.00 |
1.14 |
1.38 |
4.17 |
0.046 |
2.46 |
| |
HYP |
145.72 |
326.14 |
180.42 |
0.38 |
0.47 |
2.06 |
0.032 |
0.90 |
| DDH21-08 |
All |
1.52 |
256.03 |
254.51 |
0.17 |
0.22 |
1.22 |
0.005 |
0.38 |
| |
CAP |
1.52 |
18.57 |
17.05 |
0.06 |
0.12 |
1.02 |
0.004 |
0.18 |
| |
HYP |
18.57 |
256.03 |
237.46 |
0.17 |
0.21 |
1.21 |
0.005 |
0.37 |
| DDH21-09 |
All |
0.00 |
225.55 |
225.55 |
0.52 |
0.54 |
3.04 |
0.008 |
1.01 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
10.62 |
10.62 |
0.05 |
0.18 |
1.11 |
0.005 |
0.23 |
| |
SUP |
10.62 |
52.42 |
41.80 |
1.60 |
1.61 |
8.92 |
0.018 |
3.04 |
| |
Including |
10.62 |
76.42 |
65.80 |
1.32 |
1.33 |
7.09 |
0.019 |
2.53 |
| |
Including |
25.67 |
52.42 |
26.75 |
2.18 |
1.92 |
10.80 |
0.020 |
3.90 |
| |
Including |
34.67 |
35.67 |
1.00 |
3.27 |
4.20 |
112.00 |
0.018 |
7.74 |
| |
HYP |
52.42 |
225.55 |
173.13 |
0.29 |
0.30 |
1.73 |
0.006 |
0.56 |
| DDH21-10 |
All |
13.76 |
123.6 |
109.84 |
0.18 |
0.20 |
0.91 |
0.004 |
0.36 |
| |
CAP |
13.76 |
18.49 |
4.73 |
0.18 |
0.24 |
1.30 |
0.004 |
0.40 |
| |
HYP |
18.49 |
123.60 |
105.11 |
0.18 |
0.20 |
0.89 |
0.004 |
0.36 |
| DDH21-11 |
All |
1.52 |
251.46 |
249.94 |
0.17 |
0.44 |
2.44 |
0.012 |
0.59 |
| |
CAP |
1.52 |
76.52 |
75.00 |
0.04 |
0.50 |
2.89 |
0.013 |
0.52 |
| |
SUP |
76.52 |
142.52 |
66.00 |
0.24 |
0.48 |
2.04 |
0.012 |
0.69 |
| |
Including |
97.52 |
115.52 |
18.00 |
0.28 |
0.69 |
2.29 |
0.019 |
0.92 |
| |
HYP |
142.5 |
251.46 |
108.94 |
0.23 |
0.36 |
2.36 |
0.012 |
0.59 |
| DDH21-12 |
n/a |
162.80 |
168.80 |
6.00 |
0.09 |
0.26 |
3.70 |
0.000 |
0.34 |
| DDH21-13 |
All |
0.00 |
300.23 |
300.23 |
0.19 |
0.54 |
4.09 |
0.010 |
0.70 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
152.00 |
152.00 |
0.01 |
0.48 |
3.90 |
0.013 |
0.49 |
| |
HYP |
152.00 |
300.23 |
148.23 |
0.37 |
0.59 |
4.29 |
0.008 |
0.92 |
| |
Including |
179.00 |
200.00 |
21.00 |
0.23 |
1.51 |
5.86 |
0.005 |
1.50 |
| |
Including |
207.65 |
223.35 |
15.70 |
0.99 |
1.31 |
8.68 |
0.017 |
2.18 |
| |
Including |
216.65 |
218.79 |
2.14 |
2.29 |
5.88 |
23.90 |
0.016 |
7.26 |
| DDH21-14 |
n/a |
114.04 |
120.04 |
6.00 |
0.07 |
0.18 |
0.90 |
0.000 |
0.22 |
| |
n/a |
141.04 |
150.04 |
9.00 |
0.05 |
0.18 |
1.56 |
0.000 |
0.20 |
| |
n/a |
191.00 |
203.00 |
12.00 |
0.04 |
0.96 |
0.20 |
0.000 |
0.81 |
| |
n/a |
269.00 |
323.35 |
54.35 |
0.02 |
0.86 |
5.45 |
0.000 |
0.78 |
| DDH21-15 |
All |
4.57 |
225.55 |
220.98 |
0.19 |
0.33 |
2.36 |
0.015 |
0.54 |
| |
CAP |
4.57 |
60.62 |
56.05 |
0.09 |
0.59 |
3.00 |
0.014 |
0.64 |
| |
SUP |
60.62 |
167.59 |
106.97 |
0.25 |
0.26 |
1.93 |
0.011 |
0.52 |
| |
HYP |
167.59 |
225.55 |
57.96 |
0.18 |
0.21 |
2.54 |
0.024 |
0.46 |
| DDH21-16 |
n/a |
149.5 |
150.5 |
1.00 |
0.01 |
0.20 |
18.75 |
0.000 |
0.34 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 69 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Hole |
Zone3 |
From
(m) |
To
(m) |
Width2
(m) |
Cu
(%) |
Au
(g/t) |
Ag
(g/t) |
Mo
(%) |
CuEq1
(%) |
| DDH21-17 |
All |
0.00 |
300.23 |
300.23 |
0.24 |
0.28 |
1.38 |
0.021 |
0.57 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
21.00 |
21.00 |
0.15 |
0.40 |
2.12 |
0.017 |
0.56 |
| |
SUP |
21.00 |
36.00 |
15.00 |
0.51 |
0.55 |
2.49 |
0.028 |
1.09 |
| |
CAP |
36.00 |
94.00 |
58.00 |
0.14 |
0.37 |
1.88 |
0.017 |
0.53 |
| |
SUP |
94.00 |
154.00 |
60.00 |
0.46 |
0.31 |
1.18 |
0.029 |
0.84 |
| |
HYP |
154.00 |
300.23 |
146.23 |
0.18 |
0.19 |
1.04 |
0.020 |
0.42 |
| DDH21-18 |
n/a |
191.05 |
206.05 |
15.00 |
0.05 |
0.28 |
2.04 |
0.000 |
0.29 |
| DDH21-19 |
n/a |
No significant intervals |
| DDH21-20 |
All |
0.00 |
248.41 |
248.41 |
0.16 |
0.45 |
2.15 |
0.011 |
0.58 |
| |
CAP |
0.00 |
75 |
75.00 |
0.04 |
0.48 |
2.95 |
0.012 |
0.50 |
| |
SUP |
75.00 |
143.05 |
68.05 |
0.25 |
0.57 |
2.24 |
0.011 |
0.77 |
| |
Including |
101.05 |
122.05 |
21.00 |
0.33 |
0.84 |
3.04 |
0.017 |
1.10 |
| |
HYP |
143.05 |
248.41 |
105.36 |
0.19 |
0.35 |
1.53 |
0.009 |
0.52 |
| DDH21-21 |
n/a |
No significant intervals |
| DDH21-22 |
SUP |
13.72 |
118 |
104.28 |
0.19 |
0.16 |
0.92 |
0.007 |
0.35 |
1CuEq Metal Prices: US$2.75/lb
copper, US$1,500/oz gold, US$11/lb molybdenum, US$18/oz silver with no adjustment for metallurgical recovery.
2Widths are core length, not
true width of mineralized intersection
3Zone refers to oxidation
zone. LC designates material from the “Leached Cap” zone and SUL to material from the “Sulphide” zone comprised
of the supergene and hypogene zones.
The 2021 program comprised 16 holes within
the Casino deposit resource boundaries, centered on and extending somewhat outbound of the “Deposit Core” area. The deposit-area
drilling comprised 5 resource confirmation holes, 3 metallurgical testing holes, and 8 holes for geotechnical analysis. An additional
6 exploration holes were drilled outside of the deposit area. All holes within the deposit area returned values that confirmed and, in
some cases, exceeded previous and historical drilling results (Figure 10-4).
At Casino, higher grades are hosted mostly
by intrusive breccias and, in the Deposit Core, also by Patton Porphyry intrusive rock. Holes DDH21-07, -08 and -09, collared east of,
and at a significantly lower elevation than, the deposit core indicate that higher grades occur in brecciated zones east of the deposit
core. These high-grade intervals may be influenced by proximity to the Casino Fault, potentially providing an additional exploration target
for the Casino project.
Significant CuEq values have now been
established for the various metallurgical (MET) zones comprising the Casino deposit (Table 10-4). Analysis of results within respective
zones continue to support pre-2021 results showing that the supergene enrichment zones host somewhat higher CuEq values than the underlying
hypogene zone. Significantly higher supergene to hypogene ratios in DDH21-09 may reflect structurally controlled mineralization along
the Casino fault.
The exploration holes returned low to
negligible metal values. The exception is Hole DDH21-14, which returned a 12.00-metre interval from 191.00 m to 203.00 m grading 0.963
g/t Au, 0.20 g/t Ag and 0.0417% Cu for a CuEq value of 0.8104% Cu. This was followed by a 54.35-metre intercept from 269.00 m to 323.35
m grading 0.861 g/t Au, 5.45 g/t Ag and 0.0198% Cu for a CuEq value of 0.7812%. Values for Mo are negligible for both holes. The
geochemical signature of the lower zone, showing very strongly anomalous As and Sb values, and somewhat elevated Bi, Pb and Zn values,
is quite distinct from that of supergene or hypogene mineralization within the deposit. The geochemical signature of mineralization in
DDH21-14 is more indicative of hydrothermally derived “bonanza-style” mineralization, although the Au and Ag grades are considerably
lower than for many bonanza-style zones.
Widths within the deposit are not necessarily
true widths, particularly in outlying areas, although holes in the central deposit area closely approximate true widths due to deposit
geometry. The true widths of mineralized intervals within the six exploration holes are unknown.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 70 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-1: Casino Property Drilling
Pre-1992
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 71 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-2: Casino Property Drilling
1992 to 1994
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 72 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-3: Casino Property Drilling
from 2008 to 2012
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 73 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-4: Casino Property Drilling,
from 2013 – 2019
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 74 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-5: Detail, Casino Property
Drilling, 2013-2019
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 75 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-6: Casino Property Drilling,
2020
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 76 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 10-7: 2021 Diamond Drill Locations,
2021 Program (Image by H. Seeley, Wolfbear Geological)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 77 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 10.7 | Canadian Creek Drilling Summary |
Following acquisition of the Canadian
Creek property by Western in 2019, all drilling data was transferred from Cariboo Rose Resources Ltd. and is summarised in Table 10-4.
Since 1992, when exploration first began on the Canadian Creek property, soil sampling, trenching, geophysical surveys, and drilling have
focused on several areas of interest. A full history of the Canadian Creek property can be found in Section 6 of this report.
Table 10-4 summarizes drilling at Canadian
Creek from 1970 to 2017.
Table 10-4: Summary of Canadian Creek
Drilling
| Year |
Drilling Summary (# holes) |
Area |
Type of Drilling |
| 1970 |
2 |
Casino B |
Diamond Drilling |
| 1993 |
7 |
Ana, Koffee |
Diamond Drilling |
| 1994 |
4 |
Casino B |
Diamond Drilling |
| 2000 |
11 |
Ana, Casino B, Koffee |
Diamond Drilling |
| 2007 |
5 |
Casino B |
Diamond Drilling |
| 2009 |
10 |
Kana |
Diamond Drilling |
| 2017 |
24 |
Various |
Reverse Circulation Drilling |
| 10.8 | Sensitivity Data Photogrammetry |
In April 1993, McElhanney Consulting
Services Ltd. of Vancouver, BC, produced a map of the Casino area based on 1985 air photos provided by the Department of Energy, Mines
and Resources.
New aerial photography was conducted
in July 1993, by Lamerton & Associates of Whitehorse. The area was mapped by Eagle Mapping Services Ltd. of Port Coquitlam, BC. Eagle
Mapping utilized two government UTM co-ordinates systems, NAD83 and WGS84, in the derivation of the deposit grid co-ordinates at photo
target station #11. The following transformation parameters were used to convert from UTM coordinates to Property Grid:
| ROTATION: |
-0° 00' 05" |
| SCALE: |
1.000453652 |
| TRANSLATION: |
-6703701.92 N |
| -499861.96 E |
| ELEVATION SHIFT: |
-8.32 m |
The contours on McElhanney and Eagle
Mapping Services maps compare to within approximately 5 m and commonly closer. Generally, Eagle Mapping contours are smoother, having
more gradual changes in direction.
The 1992 to 1994 collar co-ordinates
(northing, easting, and elevation) were surveyed using a total station Nikon C-100 system. Surveying of the 1992 and 1993 drill holes
was undertaken by Lamerton & Associates. The 1994 holes were surveyed by Z. Peter, Surveyor from Burnaby, B.C. Note: All of Pacific
Sentinel’s collar coordinates were surveyed in local grid coordinates.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 78 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The 2008-2012 drill collars were surveyed
by Yukon Engineering Services from Whitehorse. The survey was completed using Differential GPS units and the results are reported in UTM
NAD83, Zone 7 coordinates. Yukon Engineering also re-surveyed 28 of Pacific Sentinel’s 1992 – 1994 drill hole collars for
comparison purposes. Those were entered into the data base with their new UTM NAD83 collar coordinates.
The 2013 and 2019 drill collars were
surveyed by CAP Engineering from Whitehorse. CAP used a Stonex GPS RTK Unit and a Topcon GPS RTK Unit to complete the surveys. These results
were reported in UTM NAD83, Zone 7 coordinates.
During the 1993 drilling program, all
drill holes, including 1992 holes deepened in 1993, underwent down-hole surveying utilizing a Sperry Sun magnetic compass tool to determine
azimuth and dip. In the 1994 drilling program, only angle holes were surveyed by Sperry Sun. Tests were normally performed every 152 m
(500 ft) down-hole on vertical holes, and every 76 m (250 ft) down-hole on angle holes. In 1994, when the program comprised shallower
angle holes, Sperry Sun tests were taken at the bottom and mid-points of the holes.
The Sperry Sun surveys averaged a dip
reading of 89.03° from 123 vertical holes that were either drilled or deepened in 1993. As the average deviation was less than one
degree, it was decided not to survey the vertical holes of the 1994 program.
| 10.11 | Light-Log Survey System |
A Light-Log directional drill hole survey
system, developed by H.J. Otte & Co., was used for sixteen angle holes at Casino, starting at hole 94-285 and continuing for most
angle holes through the remainder of the 1994 drilling program. This system recorded, on film, the bending of the unit caused by the natural
curvature in the drill hole. The instrument’s timer activated the camera and advanced the film at pre-set time intervals, allowing
the instrument to be lowered (normally every 3 m) into place between pictures. Upon completion of the survey, the film was developed.
The values observed on the film were converted by a computer program to provide co-ordinates, dip, and azimuth at every three-metre interval
downhole.
In the 1994 program, acid dip tests were
performed in the vertical holes while Sperry Sun surveys were continued in the angle holes.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 79 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 11 | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security |
The following section summarizes the
2019 and 2021 sampling and assaying protocols that have been utilized at the Casino Project site.
| 11.1 | Sampling Method and Approach |
In 2019, core was placed into wooden
core boxes directly upon emptying of the core tube at the drill site. A wooden block marked with the depth, both in feet and metres, was
placed in the core box upon completion of each drill run. Under good ground conditions, each run comprises 10 ft (3.05 m) of core. Core
boxes were stored at the core logging facility adjacent to the Casino Airstrip. As core came in from the rig, each hole was stacked separately
and clearly labelled on core racks outside of the core shack. When the core was ready to be logged, it was laid out in sequence on elevated
tables in the core shack.
Core logging commenced with geotechnical
logging. Core boxes were labelled with black felt tip pens and embossed steel tags containing hole number, box number and interval of
core within the box. Geotechnical data, including core recovery, rock quality designation (RQD), hardness and natural breaks, were recorded
for each drill run, as marked by the wooden core run blocks. In 2019 this information was recorded on paper by the geologist or geotechnical
logger, supervised by the lead geologist. Logging of the geotechnical data followed codes and formats outlined in a project-specific manual
prepared by Knight Piésold. In 2020 and 2021 all data was entered directly into a “Geospark” database.
In 2019 the geologist recorded key geologic
information, including lithology, zone, mineralization, and alteration. The data was entered onto paper. The codes and logging forms
followed, as closely as possible, the format used by Western during the 2010-2012 drilling programs. The lithology codes, copper mineralization
zone codes and alteration codes utilized in the 2013 to 2020 drilling programs were all initially developed by Pacific Sentinel and modified
by Western.
Core was photographed after the geological
logging was completed and after the sample intervals were marked.
The core processing protocol for 2020
was similar to that for 2019. Core boxes were laid out outside of the core shacks, then cleaned utilizing spray bottles and/or brushes
in preparation for geological summary logging. All core then underwent calculation of box intervals, core recoveries and “Rock Quality
Designation” (RQD), prior to more detailed geotechnical logging comprising core hardness, nature of core fractures and “breaks”
and type of fracture-filling material, if any. The core was then logged for lithology, alteration, mineralization, colour, structural
characteristics and metallurgical (“Met”) zones. Select intervals were also analyzed by an XRF device for Au, Cu, Mo, and
Ag. Sample intervals were also laid out, and were typically 3.0 m in length, although shorter if a lithological contact or significant
structural zone was encountered. Following logging, all core was digitally photographed, utilizing the same location to minimize effects
of varying light conditions. Two boxes were photographed at once, together with a “white board” showing the box numbers and
core intervals.
All 2020 and 2021 data were entered into
a Geospark database, uploaded every evening to a “Share Point” portal managed by Wolfbear Geological Consulting (Wolfbear).
All data were subsequently managed by Wolfbear and paired with analytical results upon their receipt.
The core preparation and geotechnical
protocols for 2021 were essentially the same as for 2020. The core logging protocol was considerably modified, based on development of
a significantly more detailed table of lithological codes and descriptions by Rio Tinto at the onset of the program. Summary logs with
less detail than those of 2020 were prepared either during or directly following detailed core logging, to ensure consistency of lithological
and alteration characteristics with the detailed logging. All data, including the expanded lithological codes, was entered into a Geospark
database, again uploaded every evening to a “Share Point” portal, managed by Wolfbear. Core sample intervals were the same
as for 2019 and 2020.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 80 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Sampling and analytical protocols in
use prior to the 1992 – 1994 PSG diamond drill programs are not well documented. In June 1992, core from 22 previous holes was re-sampled
by Archer Cathro. The new assay results for all metals were compared to the originals. The results indicated 14 holes (64%) had essentially
identical results, while five holes (23%) had higher re-assays and three (13%) were inconclusive. When results of the old holes were compared
with those of new holes drilled in the same locations, the results were similar to the re-sampling tests. Archer Cathro surmised that
the higher gold values in the new holes were due to a combination of improved drilling techniques that resulted in better core recovery,
and advanced laboratory techniques that provided lower analytical detection limits.
The PSG core sampling followed rigorous
procedures that were well documented and standardized throughout the drilling programs. In the 1992, 1993 and 1994 programs, exploration
targets were sampled by HQ (63.5 mm diameter) core drilling; occasionally this was reduced to NQ (47.6 mm). The boxed core samples were
transported by truck less than 5 km to a core logging facility adjacent to the Casino Airstrip for geotechnical logging, sample selection,
quality control designation, and sampling by PSG personnel. The average core recovery for all PSG core was 94%, with Hypogene core averaging
96%, Supergene averaging 92% and the Leached Cap (Oxide Gold zone) averaging 89%. Sample intervals were marked on the core by the geologist
mainly at 3-metre intervals or at geological contacts. Core intervals were sampled by mechanical splitting. The remaining half core was
returned to the boxes and stored in racks at the site. The average 3.0-metre lengthwise half-split sample provided 10 to 15 kg of material,
which was transported by charter aircraft (primarily DC-3) directly from the core sampling facility to Whitehorse and then by commercial
air freight to Vancouver for delivery to the sample preparation laboratory.
In 2008, all samples were split using
a conventional core splitter. In 2009, about 150 samples were split with a core splitter at the beginning of the program. From then on,
in 2009 through 2012, all samples were cut with a core saw. All samples were split or cut on site and placed in individually labelled
plastic sample bags with the unique sample number selected by the geologist logging the hole. The core samples were split lengthwise with
half of the core placed in the sample bag, and the other half returned to the core box. The samples were sent to ALS Chemex Labs in North
Vancouver for analysis.
In 2013 no core was sampled, but all
other core logging protocols were followed as per 2012.
The 2019 drill program followed the protocols
established in 2012. Core was split in half lengthwise with a core saw and half of the core was placed, with a sample tag, in plastic
bags with the corresponding sample ID noted on the outside of the bag. The sample bags were sealed with cable ties. Metal tags marking
the sample intervals (in metres) and with the sample ID matching the tag book were added at the applicable locations in the core boxes.
The remaining half of the core was placed back into the core box, stacked outside the core cutting shack and then moved to the core storage
yard where each hole was stored either in stacks, securely covered by tarps and labelled as per hole, or directly within the core racks.
Bagged and labelled samples were then placed in larger white rice bags, each labelled with a unique batch letter and the address of the
receiving lab and sealed with a cable tie. A running list of each batch was maintained in Excel spreadsheet form, including the samples
per bag and the dates they were sent out by plane to ALS Global in Whitehorse.
In 2020, the core was sawn lengthwise
utilizing rock saws for an even cut, so that half of the core was sent to the laboratory, and the other half remained in the core box.
The sample was placed in a pre-labelled poly bag, with a tag having a unique assay number placed within it, and the same number written
with a “Sharpie” indelible marker on the bag. All samples were sealed with a cable tie (“Zap Strap”), and placed
into rice bags, with the sample numbers, address of the receiving lab, and contact information for written on the bags. Each rice bag
was sealed with a specifically numbered security tag. Shipments comprised 20 rice bags unless it was for the final series of bags beyond
an even multiple of 20. A Sample Shipment Form listing each bag number (per batch), its weight (in lbs.), number of samples and sample
IDs within each rice bag, and total shipment weight was included in Bag 20. Samples were shipped in batches of 20 by fixed wing aircraft,
ensuring that no partial batches were shipped. The samples were flown to the Alkan base at the Whitehorse airport, and picked up directly
by Small’s Expediting of Whitehorse, Yukon, which delivered them to the ALS Geochemistry lab in Whitehorse, Yukon. The ALS lab performed
both sample preparation and analysis.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 81 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
In 2021, a core sampling regime was instituted,
depending on which of the four drill campaigns (Resource confirmation, Metallurgical, Geotechnical or Exploration) the hole belonged to.
Resource (“RES”) holes, of HTW size, underwent lengthwise splitting by core saw, with one half sent for “super trace
element” ICP-MS analysis and for 30-gram fire assay analysis, and the other half sent for metallurgical testing. The exception was
for duplicate samples (one sample per 30 regular stream samples), in which the remaining half-core split was sent for the same analysis
as the main sample stream. The metallurgical (“MET”) samples, of PQ size, were sawn in half lengthwise, with one half sent
for metallurgical analysis. The remaining half was again sawn lengthwise, resulting in “quartered” core. One quarter was sent
for regular ICP-ES and fire assay analysis, and the other quarter remained in the core box, which was stored in covered core racks on
site. Again, duplicate sampling involved removal of the final quarter core for the interval sampled. Geotechnical samples were sawn lengthwise,
with one-half sent for analysis, and the other half retained in the core box. Duplicate geotechnical samples involved the entire remaining
half-core for the sample interval. Exploration samples were treated the same as geotechnical samples, except that duplicate samples were
of “quarter core” rather than “half core.” Maximum sample length was 3.0 m for all samples, except 2.0 m for metallurgical
samples; minimum length was 1.0 m for all drilling campaigns. All core boxes containing remaining resource, geotechnical and exploration
drillhole core are stored on-site in covered core racks. Table 11-1 lists the various drilling and assaying protocols per drill campaign.
Table 11-1: Casino 2021 Drill-Hole
Requirements by Campaign
| Hole Type |
Resource |
Metallurgical |
Geotechnical |
Exploration |
| No. of holes |
5 |
3 |
8 |
6 |
| Total Metres |
1,483 |
1,001 |
1,957 |
1,634 |
| Core Diameter |
HTW |
PQ |
HTW |
HTW/NTW |
| Assay Samples |
1/2 Core |
1/4 Core |
1/2 Core |
1/2 Core |
| Assay Duplicates |
1/2 Core |
1/4 Core |
1/2 Core |
1/4 Core |
| Met Samples |
1/2 Core |
1/2 Core |
None |
None |
| Min. Sample Interval |
1.0 m |
1.0 m |
1.0 m |
1.0 m |
| Max. Sample Interval |
3.0 m |
2.0 m |
3.0 m |
3.0 m |
The chain of custody protocol for the 2021
resource confirmation, geotechnical, exploration and metallurgical samples selected for regular analysis was essentially the same as for
2020, except that a sample batch comprised an entire hole, rather than 20 rice bags. These samples were flown out by Alkan Air and held
in safe storage at the compound of Smalls Expediting until the complete batch was compiled. The batch was then delivered directly to the
ALS Geochemistry lab in Whitehorse. However, the half-core samples selected for metallurgical analysis from the “MET” and
Resource Confirmation holes remained in the core boxes, which were palletized, covered in shrink-wrap, and loaded as palletized units
onto the airplane. These were stored at the Smalls Expediting compound until all samples for all three metallurgical holes were received.
These were then transported overland by MYCAN transport to ALS Metallurgy in Kamloops, British Columbia.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 82 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
In 2008, 422 drill core samples were
collected and shipped; in 2009, 3,832 drill core samples were shipped; in 2010, 4,768 drill core samples were shipped; in 2011, 387 drill
core samples were shipped; and in 2012, 533 drill core samples were shipped. In 2013, no samples were collected. In 2019, 4,939 core samples
were collected, shipped, and analyzed. In 2020, 4,069 samples were collected, shipped, and analyzed. In 2021, 2,295 core samples (excluding
QC samples) were collected, shipped, and analyzed. All core is currently stored within covered core racks, which are continually constructed
during the field programs.
In 2021, a reconnaissance-style B-horizon
soil geochemical sampling program on a 200-metre square grid was completed across the property areas located north, east, and south of
the Casino deposit. Samples were collected using 1.2-metre-long hand augers, and placed in cloth bags, together with a sample tag with
a unique sample number supplied by the lab. This number was also written on both sides of the bag, which was tied with the attached draw
string. All samples were described in the field utilizing a printed spreadsheet with the following parameters: Sample name, sample location
(UTM NAD 83, Zone 7), surface vegetation, nature, and steepness of terrain, colour, depth of sample, horizon sampled, depth within horizon,
moisture content, percent gravel, percent sand, percent silts and clays, percent organics and percent of angular fragments where gravel
was encountered. Soil sampling tools were cleaned following completion of each sample, to eliminate potential for contamination. At each
site, a photograph of the sampled material was taken.
All samples were brought back to camp,
where they were untied and homogenized with a clean spoon prior to undergoing preliminary XRF analysis, to determine whether any sampled
areas warrant immediate follow-up exploration. Following this, samples were sealed with a cable tie, and placed in rice bags labelled
with the sample ID’s per bag, name, and address of receiving lab, and name of the provider. Each rice bag contained 25 samples,
and each was sealed with a security tag having a unique ID number. Samples were shipped in batches of 12 rice bags per batch, labelled
with the batch ID and the bag number per batch. Soil shipment data were recorded in a spreadsheet and added to the final bag in each batch,
and a copy was kept on file. Soil samples were shipped out in complete batches by Alkan Air to their Whitehorse base of operations, where
they were picked up by Smalls Expediting personnel and delivered directly to the ALS Geochemistry lab in Whitehorse. A total of 2,502
samples, excluding QC samples, were taken in 2021.
| 11.1.4 | Enersoft “GeologicAI” Scanning of Core |
Although no samples were taken during
this process, the core movement and preparation protocol warrants description. A tent, open on one side, with several core tables, was
set up adjacent to one of the core logging shacks. A schedule of drill holes selected for scanning was established. Core boxes, in order
from top to bottom of each hole, were transported from the core racks to the layout tables. Here, the core was cleared of leaves and small
organic debris and cleaned using large spray bottles. Following this, the core was moved into the core shack in final preparation for
actual scanning, including the laying flat of meterage blocks (face up) to identify depths. If excess core boxes were moved from the core
racks to the tent, they were stacked in sequential order prior to moving into the tent.
The GeologicAI apparatus scanned two
core boxes simultaneously, requiring about 12 minutes to do so. Scanning comprised chemical analysis by XRF, hyperspectral analysis to
map alteration and mineral assemblages, including sulphide mineralization, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) textural mapping, and high-resolution
photography, used for, but not limited to, RQD determination. Following scanning, the core was stacked on a separate layout area, in preparation
for return to the core racks.
The entire extent of selected holes underwent
scanning, including all 2021 holes. A total of 48,673 m of core, representing slightly over 40% of the total amount, were scanned in 2021.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 83 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 11.2.1 | 2019 Sample Preparation |
All original samples in 2019 were sent
to ALS Global Labs in Whitehorse for analysis. The standard analytical request for all samples was for preparation by procedure Prep-31A.
This process involved logging the sample into the tracking system, weighing, drying, and crushing the entire sample so that more than
70% passed through a 2 mm screen. A 250-gram split of the crushed material was then collected by riffle splitter and pulverized so
that more than 85% passed through a 75-micron (µm) screen. The resultant pulp was analyzed by the ALS lab in Whitehorse.
Sample “standards,” provided
by CDN Resource Labs and inserted in the sample stream at site, arrived at ALS Global in pulp form and went straight to analysis. Blank
samples inserted into the sample stream at site arrived as rock and went through the same preparation and analytical processes as the
core samples. Duplicate samples were sent to ALS in separate batches, arriving at a later date than the original samples. These also underwent
the same preparation and analytical processes as the original core samples.
Check pulp samples were sent from ALS
in Whitehorse to SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) in Burnaby, British Columbia (BC). At SGS, the pulps were checked for weight and fineness before
a full geochemical assay was run. This involved logging the sample into the tracking system (confirming the samples received matched the
electronic list of samples sent by Western staff), weighing, and then checking that the pulps were of appropriate fineness.
| 11.2.2 | 2020 Sample Preparation |
The standard analytical request for all
samples was for preparation by procedure Prep-31A. This process involved logging the sample into the tracking system, weighing, drying,
and crushing the entire sample so that more than 70% of the material could pass through a 2 mm screen. A 250-gram split of the crushed
material was then collected by riffle splitter and was pulverized so that a minimum of 85% of the material could pass through a 75-micron
screen. The resultant pulp was then sent for analysis within the ALS lab in Whitehorse.
“Standard” reference material
(SRM), provided by CDN Resource Labs and inserted in the sample stream at site, arrived at ALS Global in pulp form and went straight to
analysis. Blank samples, comprising dolostone available at gardening centres, arrived as rock and went through the same process as the
core samples. Duplicate samples were sent to ALS in separate batches, arriving at a later date than the original samples and then undergoing
the same process as the original core samples.
“Check” pulp samples were
sent from the Whitehorse ALS lab to the Bureau Veritas Minerals lab in Vancouver, BC. At Bureau Veritas, the pulps were checked for weight
and fineness before a full geochemical assay was run. This involved logging the sample into the tracking system and checking to confirm
that the samples received matched the electronic list of samples sent by Western Copper staff. Samples were then weighed and checked to
ensure the pulp was of appropriate fineness.
| 11.2.3 | 2021 Sample Preparation |
The standard analytical request for non-metallurgical
2021 resource confirmation, geotechnical and exploration core was essentially the same as that for 2020 samples. This process involved
logging the sample into the tracking system, weighing, drying, and crushing the entire sample so that more than 70% of the material could
pass through a 2 mm screen. A 250-gram split of the crushed material was then collected by riffle splitter and was pulverized so that
a minimum of 85% of the material could pass through a 75-micron screen. The resultant pulp was then sent for analysis within the ALS lab
in Whitehorse.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 84 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
“Standard” reference material,
provided by OREAS North America Inc. and inserted in the sample stream at site, arrived at ALS Global in pulp form and went straight to
analysis. Blank samples, comprising dolostone available at gardening centres, arrived as rock and went through the same process as the
core samples. However, in 2021 duplicate samples were included in the main sample stream, rather than as a separate batch.
The protocol for “check”
pulp samples was the same as per the 2020 program.
| 11.3.1 | Assay Analysis, 1992-1994 |
The analytical procedures utilized prior
to 1992 are unknown. All 1992 - 1994 regular, main sample-stream samples, 1992 - 1993 selected duplicate samples and 1994 random half-core
duplicate samples were analyzed by Chemex Labs. Immediately prior to selecting each pulp’s analytical aliquot, each pulp sample
was passed through a 20-mesh screen to eliminate lumps of agglomerated clay minerals. Gold (Au) was analyzed by fire assay with atomic
absorption finish. Silver (Ag) values were reported in g/t and Cu and MoS2 values were reported as percentages. Chemex also
performed 32-element ICP analysis for: Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Hg, K, La, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Sc,
Sr, Ti, Tl, U, V, W and Zn. Mineral Environments (Min-En) Laboratories, of North Vancouver, BC, analyzed the selected duplicate samples
from 1992 and 1993, and random duplicate samples from 1994. Gold was analyzed by fire assay and reported in g/t. Values for Cu and MoS2
were reported as percentages.
| 11.3.2 | Assay Analysis, 2008-2020 |
Samples for the 2008 – 2012 and
2019 programs at ALS Global were analyzed for gold, using a 30-gram sample of the pulp, by fire assay and atomic absorption (AA) finish
(Analytical code Au-AA23) to a 0.005 ppm detection limit. Results were reported in parts per million (ppm). At SGS gold assays were run
by using a 30-gram sample of the pulp with fire assay and AAS finish to a 5-ppb detection limit, according to procedure GE_FAA30V5. Results
were reported in parts per billion (ppb). Note that 5 ppb = 0.005 ppm, equivalent to g/tonne.
In 2020, following preparation of the
sample at the Whitehorse ALS lab, a full ICP suite was run on the resultant pulps at the Vancouver ALS lab using four-acid digestion with
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish. Gold analyses were run using a 30-gram sub-sample by fire assay
and atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) finish (procedure code Au-AA23) to a 0.005 ppm detection limit. Results were reported in parts
per million (ppm), equivalent to grams/tonne (g/t). Ore grade analysis for gold was run by fire assay and gravimetric finish. At Bureau
Veritas, where the check assays were done, gold assays were run using a 30-gram sample of the pulp with fire assay and AAS finish to a
0.005 ppm detection limit according to procedure FA530. Results were reported in parts per million (ppm).
| 11.3.2.2 | Copper, Molybdenum and Silver Assay |
Samples that returned over-limit values
for copper, molybdenum, or silver in the ICP analysis were assayed by analytical process OG62 at ALS Global. This process involved four-acid
digestion and analysis by ICP-AES or Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (ICP-AAS). Results were reported in percent
(%). At SGS a similar process was followed for any over-limit values for copper, molybdenum or silver involving sodium peroxide fusion
with ICP-AES, using analytical method GO ICP90Q.
These analytical processes were employed
by Western in 2019, as well as from 2008 through 2012. In 2020, the same analytical processes were employed at ALS Global, and a similar
process was employed at Bureau Veritas for any over-limit results for copper, molybdenum, or silver. This process at Bureau Veritas comprised
a four-acid digestion (0.5 g/ 200 ml) with AAS finish using the MA404 method. Results were reported in percent (%).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 85 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Samples sent to ALS Global from 2008
- 2012 and 2019 were analyzed for multiple elements, including copper, molybdenum, and silver by analytical process ME-ICP61. This process
involved a four acid “Near Total” digestion of 1.0 grams of sample pulp with Mass Emission-Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy
(ICP-MS) for the analysis. This process returned results for: Ag (ppm), Al (%), As (ppm), Ba (ppm), Be (ppm), Bi (ppm), Ca (%), Cd (ppm),
Co (ppm), Cr (ppm), Cu (ppm), Fe (%), Ga (ppm), K (%), La (ppm), Mg (%), Mn (ppm), Mo (ppm), Na (%), Ni (ppm), P (ppm), Pb (ppm),
S (%), Sb (ppm), Sc (ppm), Sr (ppm), Th (ppm), Ti (%), Tl (ppm), U (ppm), V (ppm), W (ppm), and Zn (ppm).
Samples sent to SGS were analyzed for
56 elements, including copper, molybdenum, and silver, by analytical method GO_ICP90Q100. This process involved a mineralized material
grade sodium peroxide fusion with ICP-AES. This process returned results for: Ag (ppm), Al (%), As (ppm), Ba (ppm), Be (ppm), Bi (ppm),
Ca (%), Cd (ppm), Ce (ppm), Co (ppm), Cr (%), Cs (ppm), Cu (ppm), Dy (ppm), Er (ppm), Eu (ppm), Fe (%), Ga (ppm), Gd (ppm), Ge (ppm),
Hf (ppm), Ho (ppm), In (ppm), K (%), La (ppm), Li (%), Lu (ppm), Mg (%), Mn (ppm), Mo (ppm), Nb (ppm), Nd (ppm), Ni (ppm), P (%), Pb (ppm),
Pr (ppm), Rb (ppm), Sb (ppm), Sc (ppm), Si (%), Sm (ppm), Sn (ppm), Sr (ppm), Ta (ppm), Tb (ppm), Th (ppm), Ti (%), Tl (ppm), Tm (ppm),
U (ppm), V (ppm), W (ppm), Y (ppm), Yb (ppm), Zn (ppm), and Zr (ppm).
In 2020, samples sent to ALS Global also
underwent the same analytical processes. However, “check” pulp samples were sent to the Bureau Veritas Commodities lab in
Vancouver, British Columbia, where they underwent analysis for 35 elements, including copper, molybdenum, and silver by analytical method
MA300. This process involved trace analysis using a multi-acid digestion and ICP-ES finish, providing results for: Ag (ppm), Al (%), As
(ppm), Ba (ppm), Be (ppm), Bi (ppm), Ca (%), Cd (ppm), Co (ppm), Cr (ppm), Cu (ppm), Fe (%), K (%), La (ppm), Mg (%), Mn (ppm), Mo (ppm),
Na (%), Nb (ppm), Ni (ppm), P (%), Pb (ppm), S (%), Sb (ppm), Sc (ppm), Sn (ppm), Sr (ppm), Th (ppm), Ti (%), U (ppm), V (ppm), W (ppm),
Y (ppm), Zn (ppm), and Zr (ppm).
| 11.3.2.4 | Acid-soluble Copper Analysis |
In 2008 and 2009, following receipt of
the copper analyses, samples were selected for “non-sulphide” or “acid soluble” copper analysis. The criterion
for “non-sulphide” selection was any sample that contained >100 ppm (0.0100%) Cu in the Leached Cap, Supergene Zone, or
top 50 m of the Hypogene Zone. A list of these samples was presented to ALS Chemex, which then retrieved the pulps and analyzed them by
5% sulphuric acid leach and AAS finish (procedure Cu-AA05).
In 2010 to 2012, selected samples for
“acid soluble” copper analysis were identified by the core logging geologist and the request for this analysis was submitted
when the samples were originally sent to the lab. The samples identified by the geologist were generally located from the top of the hole
to the top 50 m of the hypogene zone. On a few occasions, after receiving the geochemical results, additional samples were identified
for “non-sulphide” copper analyses and ALS Chemex was requested to pull these sample pulps and perform the analysis.
In 2019, when the initial ICP-MS assays
were returned from ALS Global on the original samples, another group of sample pulps were sent for further assay by procedure code Cu-AA05
to identify non-sulphide copper. All pulps returning > 100 ppm copper within the Leached Cap, Supergene Oxide, Supergene Sulphide,
and the initial 50 m of the Hypogene zone were pulled by ALS Global for this analysis. The processes for 2020 and 2021 were the same.
The pulps were assayed by analytical method Cu-AA05a (3% sulfuric acid leach and AAS) to test for non-sulphide copper.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 86 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 11.3.2.5 | Cyanide Soluble Copper Analysis |
In 2010, a large number of samples from
the 2008, 2009 and 2010 programs were identified for cyanide-soluble copper analyses. These samples were selected to aid with identification
of the Supergene Sulphide - Hypogene metallurgical boundary. The selected samples were analyzed by cyanide leach with AAS finish (ALS
Chemex procedure Cu-AA17a). For samples that had already been received and processed at the lab, ALS Chemex retrieved the pulps and analyzed
this material. For samples not yet sent to the lab, the geologist identified the Supergene Sulphide - Hypogene boundary visually, and
samples 30 m on either side of the boundary were identified for cyanide leach copper analysis. On a few occasions, after receiving the
geochemical results, additional samples were identified for cyanide soluble copper analyses and ALS Chemex was requested to pull these
sample pulps and perform the analysis.
In 2019, the senior geologist used the
core logging results to choose samples for cyanide-soluble copper analysis using method Cu-AA17a at ALS Global; all sample pulps from
30 m on either side of the Supergene Sulphide - Hypogene boundary were sent for this type of assay. The process utilized in 2020 was the
same, using analytical method Cu-AA17, which was identical to method Cu-AA17a for 2019.
In 2021, the senior geologist used the
core logging results to choose samples for cyanide-soluble copper analysis using method Cu-AA17a at ALS Global. These samples were selected
to aid with identification of the Supergene Sulphide - Hypogene metallurgical boundary. The geologist identified the Supergene Sulphide
- Hypogene boundary visually, and samples 30 m on either side of the boundary were identified for cyanide leach copper analysis. For samples
that had already been received and processed at the lab, ALS Global retrieved the pulps and analyzed this material. On a few occasions,
after receiving the geochemical results, additional samples were identified for cyanide soluble copper analyses and ALS Global was requested
to pull these sample pulps and perform the analysis. The selected samples were analyzed by cyanide leach with AAS finish (Procedure Cu-AA17a).
The Vancouver facility of ALS Minerals
has been assessed by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and was determined to conform to requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017, and therefore
recognized as an Accredited Testing Laboratory. Similarly, Bureau Veritas Metals, Minerals and Environmental also meets the requirements
of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 9001. The Vancouver lab of SGS Canada also has ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, and the Delta, BC lab has ISO 9001
accreditation.
| 11.3.3 | Assay Analysis 2021 |
Analytical Techniques in 2021 varied
somewhat, depending on the drilling campaign (Resource Confirmation, Metallurgical, Geotechnical or Exploration) employed. All samples
were submitted to the ALS Geochemistry prep lab in Whitehorse, and the pulps were then sent to their analytical lab in North Vancouver.
The procedures described here are for
the analytical “regular samples” of Resource Confirmation holes DDH21-01 through DDH21-03, and DDH21-05. All samples underwent
four-acid digestion followed by “super trace element” ICP-MS analysis of a 0.25-gram sample for Ag, Al, As. Ba, Be, Bi, Ca,
Cd, Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Fe, Ga, Ge, Hf, In, K, la, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, P, Pb, Rb, Re, S, Sb, Sc, Se, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Ti, Tl,
U, V, W, Y, Zn, and Zr. Also, a 30-gram sample underwent fire assay analysis with “Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy”
(ICP-AES) finish, providing a detection range of 0.001 g/t to 10.0 g/t Au. Overlimit values for Cu and Mo underwent further analysis using
a 0.4-gram sample undergoing analytical procedure OG62. Overlimit values for Au and Ag underwent reanalysis of a 30-gram sample by fire
assay with gravimetric finish, using analytical codes Au-GRA 21 (detection range: 0.05 - 10,000 ppm) and Ag-GRA21 (detection range: 5
– 10,000 ppm) respectively. All samples also underwent XRF analysis (analytical code: pXRF-30RT) for Cr, Nb, Si, Ta, Ti, Y, and
Zr. A 0.1-gram subsample of each also underwent analysis for total carbon (analytical code: C-IR07), with an analytical range of 0.01%
to 50.0%.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 87 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The analytical protocol for the geochemical
analytical portions of the Metallurgical holes (DDH21-04, 21-06 and 2-07), Geotechnical holes (DDH 21-09 through DDH 21-11, DDH21-13,
21-15, 21-20 and 21-22) and the final Resource Confirmation hole (DDH21-08) was the same as for the other Resource Confirmation holes,
except that the XRF analysis for Cr, Nb, Si, Ta, Ti, Y, Zr (code: pXRF-30RT) was excluded.
The analytical procedure for the Exploration
holes (DDH 21-12, 21-14, 21-16 through 21-19 and 21-21) was the same as above, except that analysis for total carbon (code: C-IR07) was
also excluded.
During the pre-1992 drilling campaigns
at Casino the rigours of “chain of custody” were not as stringent as presently required. The remoteness of the Casino site
provided a large degree of security as air traffic into the project was closely monitored. Further, the Casino gold grades were low and
any metal contamination or grade enhancement would be quickly and easily identified.
Adequate sample handling procedures were
in place during the 1992 - 1994 PSG programs. Geologists supervised the sampling process and the samples were kept in a secure impoundment
prior to shipping. The best vigilance on the samples was the attention to results, and in that regard, PSG maintained a thorough QA/QC
program. Samples were shipped in rice bags with uniquely numbered, non-re-sealable security tags. Each sample shipment was transported
from the Casino Property via air to Whitehorse. The samples were received at the airport by the project expediter and shipped to the appropriate
lab from there. In 2008 and early 2009, all shipments were sent by Byers Transport to the ALS Chemex lab in North Vancouver. Later in
2009 and early 2010, samples for ALS Chemex were shipped by Byers Transport to the ALS Chemex preparation facility in Terrace, BC, where
they were crushed and pulverized. The pulps were then shipped by ALS Chemex to North Vancouver for analysis. In May of 2010, ALS Chemex
opened a preparation facility in Whitehorse. From then on, all samples were delivered to the Whitehorse preparation lab by the project
expediter. The samples were logged in, crushed, and pulverized in Whitehorse and the pulps were shipped to North Vancouver for analysis.
By 2019, ALS Chemex had changed its name
to ALS Global, and installed an analytical lab in Whitehorse so that samples could be both prepared and analyzed there. This eliminated
the problems that can occur with transport of pulps. Samples were shipped from the Casino site by Alkan Air to their base in Whitehorse
where Small’s Expediting of Whitehorse, Yukon picked them up upon arrival and delivered them directly to the Whitehorse lab of ALS
Global. Rice bags were organized in batches of 20, with unique identifiers written on each bag and sealed with a uniquely numbered non-resealable
security strap. Each 20th bag contained the sample submittal form and a list of all the samples that should be included in that particular
batch. Upon receipt, ALS would confirm via email with the project manager/senior geologist the exact samples received.
The same security regimen was in place
in 2020. Upon landing at the Alkan airbase, the samples were picked up by Small’s Expediting of Whitehorse, Yukon, and driven to
the ALS lab in Whitehorse.
The same security regimen was in place
in 2021 as in previous campaigns for regular stream geochemical samples, except that each sample batch comprised all samples for a particular
hole. Rice bags were labelled with unique identifiers written on each bag and sealed with a uniquely numbered non-resealable security
strap. The first bag of each shipment contained the sample submittal form and a list of all the samples that should be included in that
particular batch. Upon landing at the Alkan airbase, the samples were picked up by Small’s Expediting of Whitehorse, Yukon, and
driven to the ALS lab in Whitehorse. Upon receipt, ALS would confirm via email with the project manager/senior geologist the exact samples
received.
If a shipment was received with a broken
security tag, the lab would notify the project manager to determine if the shipment had been tampered with, or if the tag was accidentally
damaged during shipping. Any broken sample bags were also brought to the attention of the project manager. In 2020 and 2021, the project
manager was not notified of any broken security tags or sample bags.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 88 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The security regime for the 2021 Metallurgical
samples and the half-core Resource Confirmation samples destined for metallurgical testing varied somewhat from the regular stream samples.
These samples remained in place in the core boxes, which were palletized, strapped, and wrapped in plastic “shrink-wrap” to
prevent tampering. The pallets were loaded onto the airplane, flown to the Alkan facilities in Whitehorse where they were picked up by
Smalls Expediting. The pallets were held in secure facilities owned by Smalls Expediting until the entire shipment was received. The shipment
was transported by MYCAN Transport to the ALS Metallurgy lab in Kamloops, British Columbia.
| 11.5 | Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) |
Exploration sampling and analysis prior
to 1992 were not subjected to the rigors required of modern regulatory requirements, but work conducted by major companies, such as Quintana
and Teck Corporation, followed industry standard best practices of the time.
However, details of the sampling and
analytical methodology are unknown. Moreover, analytical quality, particularly with respect to the determination of gold in the sub-1.0
g/t range, has improved considerably since the pre-1992 work was done. It is for these reasons that the assay results from these old holes
were not used in this study.
During the 1993 and 1994 Pacific Sentinel
Gold drilling programs, standards, reject duplicates, and half-core replicates were assayed at regular intervals in order to check the
security of the samples, as well as the quality and accuracy of the laboratory analyses. Further, in-house laboratory standards, duplicates
and blanks were also run and reported as normal assays on certificates.
Figure 11-1 is a flow-chart showing the
processing of drill core and quality control procedures for the 1992 and 1993 programs, and Figure 11-2 is a similar chart for the 1994
program.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 89 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-1: Flow-cart for drill
core processing and quality control procedures, 1992 and 1993 programs
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 90 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-2: Casino Drill Core Processing
and Quality Control Procedures for 1994
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 91 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
During the 2008 through 2012 drilling
programs, reference material “standards” of known metal content, “blanks”, with background metal values, and half-core
duplicates were assayed at regular intervals in order to check the security of the samples, as well as the quality and accuracy of the
laboratory analyses. The standards and blanks were prepared by CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. of Delta, BC.
In 2019 and 2020, standards, quarter-core
duplicates and blanks were assayed at regular intervals within the sample stream by the primary lab, ALS Global. One of each (standard,
blank, duplicate) were randomly inserted within every 20 core samples. The standards were prepared by WCM Minerals in Burnaby, BC. Blank
material was comprised of dolomite pebbles commonly sold as garden stone. The same protocol was followed in 2021, for all samples undergoing
regular fire assay and ICP analyses.
| 11.5.1 | Reference Material “Standards.” |
| 11.5.1.1 | Reference Material “Standards,” 2008 through 2010 |
The standard samples used in 2008, 2009
and 2010 were prepared by CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. of Delta, BC. The “Standard Reference Material” (“SRM”
or “Standard”) was a gold-copper-molybdenum standard, CDN-CM-4. It was certified by Duncan Sanderson, Licensed BC Assayer
with independent certification by Dr. Barry Smee, Ph.D., geochemist. Round-robin assaying for the standard was performed at 12 independent
laboratories. CDN reports the recommended values and the “Between Lab” Two Standard Deviations of the standard values as:
| · | Molybdenum: 0.032 + 0.004 % |
In 2008, 8 “standard” samples
were submitted at regular intervals with the sample shipments; in 2009, 81 standard samples were submitted; and in 2010, 86 standard samples
were submitted (approximately 1 per 50 core samples). ALS Chemex analyzed the standards along with the drill core samples by gold, copper,
and molybdenum assay, as well as multi-element ICP as described above.
The results from sample standard CDN-CM-4
for 2008, 2009 and 2010, for gold, copper and molybdenum analyses are plotted in Figure 11-3 to Figure 11-5 below.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 92 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-3: Sample Standard CDN-CM-4
Gold Assay Results
Figure 11-4: Standard Sample CDN-CM-4,
Copper Assay Results
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 93 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-5: Sample Standard CDN-CM-4
Molybdenum Assay Results
These three plots demonstrate that with
very few exceptions (9 exceptions for gold, 2 for copper, and one for molybdenum), the values plot within the acceptable range of the
certified standard. The plots also demonstrate that there is a reasonable spread of values within the recommended value range of 2 standard
deviations as provided by CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. There does not appear to be any systematic bias.
Later in 2010, a second sample standard
(CDN-CM-7) was purchased from CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd. as they had run out of standard CDN-CM-4. This sample is also certified by
Duncan Sanderson and Dr. Barry Smee. CDN reports the recommended values and the “Between Lab” Two Standard Deviations
of this standard as:
| · | Molybdenum: 0.027 + 0.002 % |
Fifteen of these standards were submitted
in 2010. ALS Chemex analyzed these standards in the same manner as standard CDN-CM-4, described above.
The results from sample standard CDN-CM-7
for 2010, for gold, copper and molybdenum analyses are plotted in Figure 11-6 through Figure 11-8 below:
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 94 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-6: Sample Standard CDN-CM-7
Gold Assay Results
Figure 11-7: Sample Standard CDN-CM-7,
Copper Assay Results
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 95 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-8: Sample Standard CDN-CM-7,
Molybdenum Assay Results
The three plots show a good level of
accuracy with the exception of samples 1 and 10 which are well below the expected values as certified by CDN. After checking the ALS Chemex
internal standards and the duplicates from these batches there does not appear to be a systemic error in the batches. The error may have
occurred when the sample standards were inserted in the field, or when the standards were originally placed in the geochemical run at
the lab. These anomalous errors are not considered significant, as the great majority of standards were within the expected range.
| 11.5.1.2 | Reference Material Standards, 2019 |
The SRM material used in 2019 were prepared
by WCM Minerals in Burnaby, BC. Details of the standards are outlined in Table 11-2 below. Both standards were certified by Lloyd Twaites
and Glen Armanini, who are both Registered Assayers in British Columbia.
Table 11-2: 2019 Standard reference
Material from WCM Minerals
| Standard |
Copper (%) |
Standard Deviation
Cu |
Molybdenum (%) |
Standard Deviation
Mo |
Silver (g/t) |
Standard Deviation
Ag |
Gold (g/t) |
Standard Deviation
Au |
| CU-185 |
0.400 |
0.0093 |
0.035 |
0.0019 |
15 |
0.6242 |
0.62 |
0.0217 |
| CU-188 |
0.179 |
0.0068 |
0.018 |
0.0009 |
15 |
0.7883 |
0.4 |
0.0199 |
In 2019, 273 Standard samples (1 standard
within every 20 samples) were submitted at regular intervals with the sample shipments. These comprised 154 CU-188 and 119 CU-185 standards.
ALS Global analyzed the standards along with the drill core samples by gold, copper, and molybdenum assay, as well as multi-element ICP
as described above.
The results from sample standards CU-185
and CU-188 for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum analyses are plotted below in Figure 11-9 through Figure 11-16.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 96 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-9: Gold Assay Results,
Sample Standard CU-185
Figure 11-10: Silver Assay results,
Sample Standard CU-185
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 97 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-11: Copper Assay results,
Sample Standard CU-185
Figure 11-12: Molybdenum Assay results,
Sample Standard CU-185
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 98 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-13: Gold Assay results,
Sample Standard CU-188
Figure 11-14: Silver Assay Results,
Sample Standard CU-188
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 99 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-15: Copper Assay Results,
Sample Standard CU-188
Figure 11-16: Molybdenum Assay results,
Sample Standard CU-188
Standard CU-185 performed well for all
elements of interest in 2019; all elements had higher than 90% passing rates within both two and three standard deviations of the mean
expected values. In general, both copper and molybdenum values fell below the expected mean for CU-185, but still within an acceptable
range. Silver showed good variation both above and below the mean value and gold values generally plotted slightly above the mean value.
Table 11-3 summarizes the results for CU-185.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 100 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 11-3: Performance of Standard
CU-185 during 2019 Drill Program Sampling
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
7 |
94 |
2 |
98 |
| Ag |
1 |
99 |
1 |
99 |
| Cu |
12 |
90 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
1 |
99 |
0 |
100 |
Standard CU-188 also performed well for
all elements of interest in 2019; all elements, except molybdenum (Mo) had higher than 90% passing rates within both two and three standard
deviations of the mean expected values. In the case of the 32 standards that fell outside of the range of 2 standard deviations for Mo,
the chart shows that, overall, this standard returned assay results below the expected mean value for Mo, as did those of CU-185. This
indicates that both standards should be reassessed in a round robin process, and that the assay method ALS Global uses may tend toward
a low bias for Mo. Even with the 32 Mo failures, 79.2% of the samples fell within 2 standard deviations and the range of values was acceptable.
One sample, A0612554, failed outright for both Mo and Au. It is possible this sample became contaminated, as ALS Global had notified the
project manager that this sample arrived with a torn plastic bag and had to be dried. Table 11-4 summarizes the results for CU-188.
Table 11-4: Performance of Standard
CU-188 during 2019 Drill Program Sampling
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
7 |
95 |
1 |
99 |
| Ag |
2 |
98.7 |
0 |
100 |
| Cu |
1 |
99 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
32 |
79.2 |
2 |
98.7 |
| 11.5.1.3 | Reference Material Standards, 2020 |
The SRM “standards” used
in 2020 were prepared by WCM Minerals in Burnaby, BC. Details of the standards are outlined in Table 11-5 below. Both standards were certified
by Lloyd Twaites and Glen Armanini, who are both Registered Assayers in British Columbia.
Table 11-5: Reference material "Standards",
utilized in 2021 (OREAS)
| Standard |
Copper (%) |
Standard Deviation |
Standard |
Copper (%) |
Standard Deviation |
Standard |
Copper (%) |
Standard Deviation |
| CU-190 |
0.65 |
0.0188 |
0.032 |
0.0013 |
9 |
0.7580 |
0.68 |
0.0279 |
| CU-188 |
0.179 |
0.0068 |
0.018 |
0.0009 |
15 |
0.7883 |
0.4 |
0.0199 |
In 2020, 250 sample standards (1 standard
within every 20 samples) were submitted regularly with the sample shipments. Of these, 178 were of CU-188 and 72 were of CU-190. ALS Global
Geochemistry (ALS) analyzed the standard samples along with the drill core samples by gold, copper, and molybdenum assay, as well as multi-element
ICP-AES.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 101 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The results from sample standards
CU-188 and CU-190 for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum analyses are plotted below in Figure 11-17 through Figure 11-24.
Figure 11-17: Gold assay results,
Standard CU-188
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 102 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-18: Silver assay results,
Standard CU-188
Figure 11-19: Copper assay results,
Standard CU-188
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 103 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-20: Molybdenum assay results,
Standard CU-188
Figure 11-21: Gold assay results,
Standard CU-190
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 104 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-22: Silver assay results,
Standard CU-190
Figure 11-23: Copper assay results,
Standard CU-190
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 105 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-24: Molybdenum assay results,
Standard CU-190
Standard reference material CU-188 performed
well for gold, silver, and copper; all had higher than 96% passing rates within both two and three standard deviations of the mean expected
values. CU-188 did not perform as well for molybdenum, but results were still acceptable, with 82% passing within two standard deviations
and 98% within three standard deviations. Molybdenum values in general fell below the expected mean for CU-188, with an average closer
to 166 ppm Mo, 14 ppm below the expected mean of 180 ppm. This also occurred in 2019 with CU-188 and indicates the standard itself should
be reassessed by a Round Robin analysis. Two samples that failed for all the elements of interest (B660215 and A0610430) likely represent
data entry errors as their values correspond to those of CU-190. Table 11-6 summarizes the results for CU-188.
Table 11-6: Performance of Standard
CU-188 during 2020 drill program
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
6 |
97 |
3 |
98 |
| Ag |
2 |
99 |
2 |
99 |
| Cu |
2 |
99 |
2 |
99 |
| Mo |
33 |
82 |
3 |
98 |
Standard reference material CU-190 also
performed well for all elements of interest in 2020 (Table 11-7); all elements, except molybdenum (Mo), had higher than 93% passing rates
within both two and three standard deviations of the mean expected values. As with CU-188, the overall average Mo value returned for CU-190
is 305 ppm, 15 ppm lower than the expected certified value of 320 ppm Mo. Over 81% of CU-190 sample values were within two standard
deviations, which is acceptable, but similar to results for CU-188. CU-190 likely requires an updated Round Robin analysis to determine
the accuracy of the certified mean value for molybdenum.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 106 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 11-7: Performance of Standard
CU-190 during 2020 drill program
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Ag |
4 |
94 |
1 |
99 |
| Cu |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
9 |
87.5 |
1 |
99 |
| 11.5.1.4 | Reference Standards 2021 |
The CRMs “standards” used
in 2021 were prepared by ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd. Details of the standards are outlined in Table 11-8 below. All standards
were certified by Craig Hamlyn, Technical Manager of ORE Pty Ltd.
Table 11-8: Reference material "Standards",
utilized in 2021 (OREAS)
| Standard |
Copper (%) |
Standard Deviation
Cu |
Molybdenum (ppm) |
Standard Deviation
Mo |
Silver (g/t) |
Standard Deviation
Ag |
Gold (ppm) |
Standard Deviation
Au |
| OREAS 905 |
0.1533 |
0.0061 |
3.27 |
0.262 |
n/a |
n/a |
0.391 |
0.01 |
| OREAS 506 |
0.444 |
0.01 |
87 |
3.6 |
1.88 |
0.075 |
0.364 |
0.0199 |
| OREAS 502c |
0.783 |
0.022 |
226 |
12 |
0.779 |
0.076 |
0.488 |
0.015 |
| OREAS 151a |
0.166 |
0.005 |
40 |
3 |
n/a |
n/a |
0.043 |
0.002 |
In 2021, 132 sample standards (1 standard
within every 20 samples) were submitted regularly with the sample shipments. Of these, 61 were of OREAS 151a, 27 were OREAS 502c, 13 were
OREAS 506 and 31 were OREAS 905. ALS Global Geochemistry (ALS) analyzed the standard samples along with the drill core samples by gold,
copper, and molybdenum assay, as well as multi-element ICP-AES.
The results for the standards OREAS 151a
are shown below in Figure 11-25 through Figure 11-27.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 107 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-25: Gold assay results,
OREAS 151a
Figure 11-26: Copper assay results,
OREAS 151a
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 108 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-27: Molybdenum assay results,
OREAS 151a
OREAS 151a performed well for all elements
of interest in 2021; all elements had higher than 80% passing rates within two and three standard deviations of the mean expected values.
Copper and molybdenum both had 100% passing rates. All three elements plotted above their mean expected values on average, but within
acceptable limits for copper and molybdenum. Gold had several failures from certificate WH2122237 that were on the high end of the spectrum,
thus a re-run was requested of these failures and surrounding core samples. While there was not enough material to re-assay the standards
that failed, the surrounding core samples were re-assayed and the results were, on average, 0.001 ppm lower than the original assays.
This is a relatively small difference but does indicate a high bias or potential contamination with gold fire assay at the time of the
original analysis and for this reason. The core sample dataset has been corrected to reflect the re-assay values. At the time of this
report, additional samples of OREAS 151a had yet to be supplied to the primary lab for re-analysis. Table 11-9 summarizes the results
for OREAS 151a.
Table 11-9: Summary of Results for
OREAS 151a
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
10 |
83.6 |
7 |
88.5 |
| Cu |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
Figure 11-28 to Figure 11-31 illustrate
the performance of SRM material OREAS 502c.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 109 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-28: Gold assay results,
OREAS 502c
Figure 11-29: Silver assay results,
OREAS 502c
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 110 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-30: Copper assay results,
OREAS 502c
Figure 11-31: Molybdenum assay results,
OREAS 502c
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 111 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
OREAS 502c performed well for all elements
of interest in 2021 with no failures for any variables. On average, silver results plotted slightly above the mean for the standard and
molybdenum plotted slightly below, but all within acceptable limits. Table 11-10 summarizes the results for OREAS 502c.
Table 11-10: Summary of results for
OREAS 502c
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Cu |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Ag |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
Figure 11-32 through Figure 11-35 illustrate
the results for SRM material OREAS 506.
Figure 11-32: Gold assay results,
OREAS 506
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 112 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-33: Silver assay results,
OREAS 506
Figure 11-34: Copper assay results,
OREAS 506
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 113 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-35: Molybdenum assay results,
OREAS 506
OREAS 506 performed well for all elements
of interest in 2021 with no failures for any variables. For gold, copper, and molybdenum there was one sample for each (all different
samples) that plotted close to two standard deviations from the mean, but these were all still within acceptable limits. The population
of samples (13) for OREAS 506 was relatively small compared to that of the other standards. A larger data set would improve the ability
to assess this reference material. Table 11-11 summarizes the results for OREAS 506.
Table 11-11: Summary of results for
OREAS 506
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Cu |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Ag |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
Figure 11-36 and Figure 11-37 illustrate
the results for SRM material OREAS 905.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 114 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-36: Gold assay results,
OREAS 905
Figure 11-37: Copper assay results,
OREAS 905
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 115 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
OREAS 905 performed well for all elements
of interest in 2021 with all elements passing above 80%. Molybdenum had five failures outside of two standard deviations and one outside
of three. The same samples did not fail for copper and were independent of the sample that failed for gold. Table 11-12 summarizes the
results for OREAS 905.
Table 11-12: Summary of Results for
OREAS 905
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
1 |
96.8 |
0 |
100 |
| Cu |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Mo |
5 |
83.9 |
1 |
96.8 |
| 11.5.2.1 | Blanks, 2010-2012 |
Commencing in 2010, sample blanks were
regularly inserted into the sample stream. Blanks are included as a check of the lower limit of the analytical range and to ensure that,
at all stages in the process, the equipment and instruments are thoroughly cleaned prior to running subsequent samples. This is particularly
important for precious metals. A total of 75 blanks were inserted during the 2010 program, nominally one every 50 samples.
The blank samples were also prepared
by CDN Resource Laboratories Ltd (Reference material CDN-BL-6). They were certified for gold, platinum, and palladium. The recommended
values for these elements were:
As the reported recommended gold values
by CDN are below detection, they are not included in the plots. The gold values of the blanks analyzed ranged from below detection (<0.005
g/t) to a maximum of 0.046 g/t. The silver values ranged from <0.5 to 0.8 ppm.
During the 2019 drill program, a landscape
aggregate that was readily available in Whitehorse was used as blank material. It was sent to 4 different labs for a Round Robin analysis,
with the following values calculated from the results:
Approximately 100 g of blank material
were placed in each sample bag, and 1 blank sample was inserted randomly within every 20 core samples. A total of 277 blank samples were
inserted into the sample stream in 2019.
The results from blank material for gold,
silver, copper, and molybdenum analyses are plotted below in Figure 11-38 through Figure 11-41.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 116 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-38: Gold Assay results,
Blank Material
Figure 11-39: Silver Assay results,
Blank Material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 117 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-40: Copper Assay Results,
Blank Material
Figure 11-41: Molybdenum Assay Results,
Blank Material
The blank material performed well for
all elements of interest in 2019; all elements had higher than 90% passing rates within both two and three standard deviations of the
mean expected values. On average gold values plotted well above the expected mean, but as Figure 11-38 shows, the detection limit for
gold at ALS Global limits the lowest assay value to 0.0025 ppm, which is above the expected mean of 0.002 ppm for the blank material.
The detection limits for silver and molybdenum are also higher than the expected mean of the blank material for those elements. Even with
the detection limit cut-offs, the passing rates are still acceptable. Figure 11-38 and Figure 11-39, for gold and silver respectively,
do show a few off-chart potentially high-value failures. Upon investigation for gold the two samples with the greatest variation from
the expected mean of 0.002 ppm Au varied by only 10-13%. The samples prior to these blanks returned 0.159 ppm Au and 0.283 ppm Au respectively,
indicating the likelihood of some minor smear during the assaying. The failures for silver are somewhat less certain as there is no indication
of high-grade material prior to the failed silver values. Table 11-13 below summarizes the overall performance of the Blank Material in
2019.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 118 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 11-13: Performance of Blank
Material during 2019 Drill Program Sampling
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
17 |
94 |
9 |
97 |
| Ag |
6 |
98 |
4 |
99 |
| Cu |
16 |
94 |
6 |
98 |
| Mo |
10 |
96 |
10 |
96 |
During the 2020 drill program, a landscape
aggregate (dolostone) that was readily available in Whitehorse was used as Blank Material. The material was of the same type as that submitted
for round-robin analysis in 2019.
Each “blank” sample was comprised
of approximately 200 g of material placed into a sample bag. One blank sample was inserted randomly within every 20 core samples. A total
of 251 Blanks were inserted into the sample stream in 2020.
The results from blank material for gold,
silver, copper, and molybdenum analyses are plotted below in Figure 11-42 through Figure 11-45.
Figure 11-42: Gold Assay results,
Blank Material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 119 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-43: Silver Assay Results,
Blank Material
Figure 11-44: Copper Assay Results,
Blank Material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 120 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-45: Molybdenum Assay Results,
Blank Material
The blank material performed well for
all elements of interest in 2020; all elements had higher than 85% passing rates within both two and three standard deviations of the
mean expected values. On average, gold values plotted well above the expected mean, but, as Figure 11-42 shows, the detection limit for
gold at ALS limits the lowest assay value to 0.0025 ppm, which is above the expected mean of 0.002 ppm for the blank material. The detection
limits for silver and molybdenum are also higher than the expected means of the blank material for those elements. Even with the detection
limit cut-offs, the passing rates are still acceptable. Figure 11-42 through Figure 11-45 do show a few off-chart, high value fails. Table
11-14 below summarizes the overall performance of the blank material in 2020.
Upon review of gold values, the sample
with the greatest variation is sample B661435, at 2.35 ppm Au. This sample is only anomalous for gold as the other elements are all within
the acceptable values for blank material. This sample was placed within a zone of anomalous gold values, but this zone is significantly
less than 2 ppm Au. It’s likely this is a lab error for gold. Another sample, B660416, returned 0.044 ppm Au, over twenty times
the expected value; it was not placed in a zone of higher-grade material. The geochemical analysis for this sample shows fail values for
all elements of interest; therefore, this is likely a data entry or sampling error. The remaining fail values for gold are all within
10 x the expected value of 0.002 ppm (e.g., B660460 is 0.012 ppm Au). They are all located either within zones of higher-grade material,
or immediately following a “Standard” sample. The likely cause is laboratory equipment smear.
Of the three samples returning fail values
for silver, one, as noted above for gold, is B660416, which likely represents a data entry error. The causes of the other two failures
are somewhat less certain, as there are no indications of higher-grade material prior to these samples, and the other elements were within
acceptable ranges.
The majority of the copper fail values
were on the border of either two or three standard deviations, allowing for some leeway in accepting these as actual fail values (Table
11-14). These samples were all within zones of anomalous Cu grades. The remainder of the fails that exceeded three standard deviations
account for only 2% of all the blanks within the 2020 season. One of these samples is B660416, which has been deemed a data entry error,
and the other four are within higher grade zones and can be attributed to minor smear effects.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 121 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 11-14: Performance of Blank
Material during 2020 Drill Program
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
36 |
85.7 |
23 |
90.8 |
| Ag |
3 |
98.8 |
2 |
99.2 |
| Cu |
11 |
95.6 |
6 |
97.6 |
| Mo |
24 |
90.4 |
24 |
90.4 |
During the 2021 drill program, a landscape
aggregate (dolostone) that was readily available in Whitehorse was used as Blank Material. The material was of the same type as that submitted
for round-robin analysis in 2019.
Each “blank” sample was comprised
of approximately 200 g of material placed into a sample bag. One blank sample was inserted randomly within every 20 core samples. A total
of 134 Blanks were inserted into the sample stream in 2021.
The results from blank material for gold,
silver, copper, and molybdenum analyses are plotted below in Figure 11-46 through Figure 11-49.
Figure 11-46: Gold assay results,
Blank material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 122 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-47: Silver assay results,
Blank material
Figure 11-48: Copper assay results,
Blank material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 123 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-49: Molybdenum assay results,
Blank material
Analysis of blank material in 2021 returned
satisfactory results in 2021 but performed worse overall than in previous years. All elements had higher than 75% passing rates within
three standard deviations of the mean expected values. On average, gold values plotted well above the expected mean, but, as Figure 11-46
shows, the detection limit for gold at ALS limits the lowest assay value to 0.0025 ppm, which is above the expected mean of 0.002 ppm
for the blank material. Silver plotted well below the expected mean overall, but within acceptable limits. Molybdenum and copper both
plotted above their expected means on average. These variances indicate the landscape aggregate should be sent for another round-robin
analysis to determine whether the constituents have changed since 2019.
Several groups of failures from particular
certificates have been requested to be re-run, but at the time of this report, those results have yet to be finalized. Table 11-15 lists
the performance of blank sampling in 2021.
Table 11-15: Performance of Blank
material during 2021 Drill program
| Element |
# Failures within 2 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 2 Standard Deviations |
# Failures within 3 Standard Deviations |
% Passing within 3 Standard Deviations |
| Au |
33 |
75.4 |
23 |
82.8 |
| Ag |
0 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
| Cu |
15 |
88.8 |
4 |
97 |
| Mo |
31 |
76.9 |
21 |
84.3 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 124 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 11.5.3 | Field Duplicates, 2020 |
| 11.5.3.1 | 2008 through 2010 |
Field core duplicates are separate samples
taken in the same manner and at the same core interval as the original sample. They are utilized to measure inherent variability in metal
content from a single location and sample medium, and to provide an indication of sample reproducibility in the field. Field core duplicates
were collected from the half-core that remained following the collection of the original sample. The duplicate was collected by sawing
the half-core in half longitudinally, so that one quarter of the original core was collected. Duplicates were collected nominally for
every 20th sample. Where duplicates were collected, only one quarter of the core remains stored in the core box on the property.
In 2008, 21 core duplicate pairs were
collected; in 2009, 199 core duplicate pairs were collected; in 2010, 245 core duplicate pairs were collected. The original half-core
samples were shipped to ALS Chemex and assayed for gold, copper, and molybdenum, as well as multi-element ICP analysis as described above.
The duplicate quarter-core samples were shipped to Acme Labs for gold, copper, and molybdenum assay, as well as multi-element ICP analysis
in a manner identical to that performed at ALS Chemex, as described above. The results for the duplicate analyses for gold, silver, copper,
and molybdenum are demonstrated in comparison plots between the Acme and ALS Chemex values below (Figure 11-50 through Figure 11-53).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 125 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-50: Plot of ALS Chemex
Au assay vs Acme Labs Au assay for Field Duplicate Samples (2008, 2009 and 2010 samples)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 126 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-51: Plot of ALS Chemex
Ag analyses vs. Acme Labs Ag Analysis for Field Duplicate Samples (2008, 2009, 2010 samples)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 127 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-52: Plot of ALS Chemex
Cu Assay vs. Acme Labs Cu Assay for Field Duplicate Samples (2008, 2009 and 2010 Data)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 128 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-53: Plot of ALS Chemex
Mo assay vs Acme Labs Mo assay for Field Duplicate Samples (2008, 2009 and 2010 Data)
The plots show generally good correlation
between ALS Chemex and Acme Labs for all four elements of interest.
Often the “nugget effect”
associated with gold and silver content will produce widely divergent values, which would plot as highly scattered data points. However,
the gold and silver results from the duplicate samples show good correlation.
Ideally, a trend line of y=1x would show
perfect reproducibility. This is rarely, if ever, the case due to the difference of mineral content between duplicate samples. The data
trend line for gold returned y=1.105x. This demonstrates that Acme Lab results, as a whole, are 10.5% higher than ALS Chemex results.
All samples cluster in close proximity to the trend line which indicates no strong “nugget effect” and good reproducibility.
The data trend line for silver is y=1.228x.
This demonstrates that Acme Lab analytical results, as a whole, are 22.8% higher than ALS Chemex values. In general, the points cluster
well around the trend line with the exception of one sample, also demonstrating good reproducibility.
The results for duplicate analyses for
copper demonstrate excellent reproducibility. The data trend line returned y=1.017x. The copper data clusters tightly around trend line
with the exception of one value. In general, the Acme results are very slightly higher (1.7%) than the ALS Chemex results.
The molybdenum plot demonstrates slightly
more scattered results with 8 points plotting far off the trend line (y=0.880x). The trend line indicates that, in general, the Acme results
for molybdenum are 12% lower than ALS Chemex results. Overall, the duplicate results show good correlation. Molybdenite mineralization
was observed in quartz veins in the drill core and it is possible that the 8 erratic values are reflecting a molybdenum “nugget
effect”, where there is a variability of molybdenite concentration between samples.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 129 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The results of analyses from the sample
standards, blanks and duplicates provide for acceptable Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) for the geochemical programs at
Casino from 2008 through 2010. The results also indicate that there is no evidence of tampering during the sample collection process,
shipping or at the laboratory. There is also no evidence of systemic errors in the sample preparation and analytical processes.
| 11.5.3.2 | Field Duplicates 2019 |
In 2019, insertion of both field duplicates
and pulp check duplicates were part of the overall sampling protocol at Casino.
Field Duplicates
Similar to standards and blanks, 1 field
duplicate was inserted randomly within every 20 samples. The duplicate was quarter cored by the core cutter from the original sample and
placed in a separate bag with its own sample tag number. This duplicate quarter-core sample would be set aside in a bin to be sent to
ALS Global for analysis in a separate batch at a later date than its corresponding original sample. The purpose of this kind of duplicate
sample is to test the reproducibility of the lab’s analytical methods.
Figure 11-54 through Figure 11-57 show
the comparison between the original core sample results and the duplicate core sample results for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum.
Figure 11-54: Comparison Plot between
Original Gold Values and Duplicate Gold Values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 130 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-55: Comparison Plot between
Original Silver Values and Duplicate Silver Values
Figure 11-56: Comparison Plot between
Original Copper Values and Duplicate Copper Values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 131 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-57: Comparison Plot between
Original Copper Values and Duplicate Copper Values
Field duplicates for 2019 performed well,
but not without issues (Table 11-16). The problem with field duplicates in this type of deposit is the difficulty to accurately cut a
piece of core into two identical quarters.
Table 11-16: Summary of Duplicate
(Core) Pair Performance during 2019 Drill Program Sampling
| Element |
Duplicate Pairs Within 10% Difference |
% total pairs within 10% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 20% Difference |
% total pairs within 20% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 30% Difference |
% total Duplicates within 30% |
| Au |
120 |
34.9 |
211 |
61.3 |
269 |
78.2 |
| Ag |
141 |
41 |
214 |
62.2 |
240 |
69.8 |
| Cu |
181 |
52.6 |
276 |
80.2 |
308 |
89.5 |
| Mo |
109 |
31.7 |
166 |
48.3 |
215 |
62.5 |
Check Duplicates
Check samples were selected at random
from the entire sample population once the primary lab, ALS Global, had reported all the final assay results for the 2019 Casino Project.
A list of 973 sample numbers (using a random selection in Excel) was sent to ALS Global in Whitehorse from the project manager/senior
geologist, requesting ALS to pull the pulps for the samples listed and send them directly to SGS Canada Inc. in Burnaby, BC for processing.
This represents a little over 20% of the entire 2019 sample population. Once received by SGS, these pulps were logged into their system,
re-homogenized non-mechanically, then dry-screened randomly (1/100 samples were checked) to various mesh sizes to verify fineness. No
major issues were found regarding fineness, and SGS proceeded with the full assay protocol.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 132 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The purpose of this kind of duplicate/check
is to test the methodology of the primary lab to ensure there is no bias or systemic errors, and that other labs using similar methods
can reproduce their results within a predetermined degree of variance.
Figure 11-58 through Figure 11-61 show
the comparison between the original core sample results from ALS Global in Whitehorse and the check pulp sample results from SGS in Burnaby
for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum.
Figure 11-58: Comparison Plot between
Gold Values from ALS Global and Gold Values from SGS
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 133 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-59: Comparison Plot between
Silver Values from ALS Global and Silver Values from SGS
Figure 11-60: Comparison Plot between
Copper Values from ALS Global and Copper Values from SGS
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 134 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-61: Comparison Plot between
Molybdenum Values from ALS Global and Molybdenum Values from SGS
Check samples for 2019 performed well,
better than most duplicates overall, but still not without issue (Table 11-17). In general, gold and silver showed lower correlation between
pairs of pulps analyzed for all elements of interest than did copper and molybdenum. Silver showed the poorest correlation with less than
20% of samples having variation under 10%. The number of 2019 check samples (>20% of total) sent to the secondary lab represented a
much larger population of samples than is industry practice, which is about 5%. The high percentage delivered in 2019 was partially due
to utilization of a new laboratory for check samples, and to prove past success at these rates.
Table 11-17: Summary of Check (Pulps)
Pair performance during 2019 Drill Program Sampling
| Element |
Check Pairs Within 10% Difference |
% total pairs within 10% |
Check Pairs Within 20% Difference |
% total pairs within 20% |
Check Pairs Within 30% Difference |
% total Duplicates within 30% |
| Au |
465 |
47.8 |
711 |
73.1 |
817 |
84 |
| Ag |
187 |
19.2 |
351 |
36 |
469 |
48.2 |
| Cu |
692 |
71.1 |
953 |
97.9 |
961 |
98.8 |
| Mo |
596 |
61.3 |
757 |
77.8 |
812 |
83.5 |
| 11.5.3.3 | Field Duplicates, 2020 |
In 2020, both field duplicates and pulp
check duplicates comprised part of the overall sampling protocol at Casino.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 135 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Field Duplicates
Similarly to standards and blanks, 1
field duplicate was inserted randomly within every 20 samples, equating to 252 duplicate samples in 2020. The duplicate sample was
quarter cored by the core cutter and placed in a separate bag, along with its own sample tag, from the original sample. This duplicate
quarter-core sample was set aside in a bin to be sent to ALS for analysis in a separate batch that was sent at a later date than its corresponding
original sample. The purpose of this is to test for the uniformity of metal content in the core, and for the reproducibility of the lab’s
analytical methods.
Figure 11-62 through Figure 11-65 show
the comparison between the original core sample results and the duplicate core sample results for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum.
Figure 11-62: Comparison between
Original and Duplicate Gold Values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 136 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-63: Comparison between
Original and Duplicate Silver Values
Figure 11-64: Comparison between
Original and Duplicate Copper Values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 137 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-65: Comparison between
Original and Duplicate Molybdenum Values
Field duplicates for 2020 performed well,
but not excellently. The issue with field duplicates in this type of deposit is the difficulty to accurately cut the core into identical
“quarters”. In this way a pulp duplicate would test the lab’s reproducibility more effectively. Table 11-18 summarizes
the duplicate performance for each element of interest in 2020.
Table 11-18: Summary of Dupluicate
(core) Pair Performance during 2020 Drill Program
| Element |
Duplicate Pairs Within 10% Difference |
% total pairs within 10% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 20% Difference |
% total pairs within 20% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 30% Difference |
% total Duplicates within 30% |
| Au |
88 |
34.9 |
164 |
65.1 |
191 |
75.8 |
| Ag |
121 |
48 |
163 |
64.7 |
240 |
69.8 |
| Cu |
181 |
52.6 |
276 |
80.2 |
308 |
89.5 |
| Mo |
109 |
31.7 |
166 |
48.3 |
215 |
62.5 |
Some degree of “coarse gold (nugget)
effect” is likely here. Both Au and Ag commonly occur as fine nuggets, as is evident by visible gold occurring in DDH 19-21. This
may account for the lower reproducibility rates for these elements. Chalcocite veins, which are fairly common, are prone to uneven distribution
within core duplicates. The low rates for Mo may also be due to the sub-centimetre vein-associated nature of molybdenite mineralization,
particularly prone to uneven distribution within core duplicates (Schulze, 2021).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 138 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Check Pulp Duplicates
Check samples were selected at random
from the entire sample population once the primary lab, ALS Global, had reported all the final assay results for the 2020 Casino Project.
A list of 200 sample numbers (using a random selection process in Microsoft Excel) was sent to ALS requesting them to pull the pulps for
the samples listed and send them directly to the Bureau Veritas Minerals (BV) lab in Vancouver, BC for analysis. This represents 5% of
the entire 2020 sample population. Once received by BV, these pulps were logged into their system, re-homogenized non-mechanically, then
dry-screened and sent through various mesh sizes on a random basis to verify fineness. No major issues were found regarding fineness and
BV proceeded with the full assay protocol.
The purposes of these kind of check samples
are to test the methodologies of the primary lab to ensure there are no biases or systemic errors, and to verify that other labs using
similar methods can reproduce the results within a certain degree of variance.
Figure 11-66 through Figure 11-73 show
the comparison between the original core sample results from ALS and the check pulp sample results from BV for gold, silver, copper, and
molybdenum.
Figure 11-66: Comparison of Gold
Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 139 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-67: Correlation between
Gold Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
Figure 11-68: Comparison between
Silver Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 140 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-69: Correlation between
Silver Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
Figure 11-70: Comparison between
Copper Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 141 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-71: Correlation between
Copper Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
Figure 11-72: Comparison of Molybdenum
Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 142 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-73: Correlation between
Molybdenum Values from ALS Global and Bureau Veritas
Check Pulp Duplicates performed well
in 2020 and better than Field Duplicates overall. Table 11-19 summarizes the percentages of check pairs that fall within 10%, 20% and
30% variation bands. Figure 11-67, Figure 11-69, Figure 11-71 and Figure 11-73 all show a good correlation between the pairs of check
samples. Ideally, a trend line on these figures of y=1x would show perfect correlation and reproducibility, but this is rarely the case
due to the differences in mineral content between duplicate samples.
Gold showed good correlation with a data
trend line of y=1.0042x, demonstrating that gold results from BV are only 0.4% higher than ALS Global results. The data trend line for
silver is y=0.9257x, demonstrating that BV results for silver are 7.4% lower than ALS results. For copper the data trend line is y=0.9522x,
which indicates that BV results for copper are about 4.8% lower than ALS. Finally, for molybdenum, the data trend line is y=1.0361x, showing
that BV results are 3.6% higher than ALS.
A “nugget effect” associated
with gold and silver content can often produce widely divergent values, plotting as highly scattered data points. Aside from a small number
of gold pairs, gold and silver results show good correlation, indicating pulp material was well-mixed by the labs during the preparation
stage, and no strong “nugget effect” occurs within the samples.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 143 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 11-19: Summary of Check (Pulps)
Pair Performance during 2020 Drill Program
| Element |
Check Pairs Within 10% Difference |
% total pairs within 10% |
Check Pairs Within 20% Difference |
% total pairs within 20% |
Check Pairs Within 30% Difference |
% total Duplicates within 30% |
| Au |
95 |
48.0 |
156 |
78.0 |
172 |
86.0 |
| Ag |
103 |
51.5 |
134 |
67.0 |
144 |
72.0 |
| Cu |
168 |
84 |
191 |
95.5 |
196 |
98.0 |
| Mo |
116 |
58.0 |
161 |
80.5 |
168 |
84 |
| 11.5.3.4 | Field Duplicates, 2021 |
Field Duplicate analysis in 2021 returned
results similar to those from 2019 and 2020. The issue with field duplicates at the Casino deposit is the difficulty to accurately cut
the core into identical “quarters”. Although a high level of diligence was employed, the potential for uneven cutting exists,
particular in areas of fractured, broken, or rubbly core.
Table 11-20 summarizes the duplicate
performance for each element of interest in 2021.
Table 11-20: Summary of Duplicate
(core) Pair Performance during 2021 Drilling program
| Element |
Duplicate Pairs Within 10% Difference |
% total pairs within 10% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 20% Difference |
% total pairs within 20% |
Duplicate Pairs Within 30% Difference |
% total Duplicates within 30% |
| Au |
61 |
45.2 |
95 |
70.4 |
107 |
79.3 |
| Ag |
70 |
51.9 |
101 |
74.8 |
115 |
85.2 |
| Cu |
79 |
58.5 |
110 |
81.5 |
122 |
90.4 |
| Mo |
40 |
29.6 |
82 |
60.7 |
107 |
79.3 |
Some degree of coarse gold (nugget) effect
is likely here. Both Au and Ag commonly occur as fine nuggets, the uneven distribution of which may account for their lower reproducibility
rates. Molybdenum commonly occurs as flakes, leading to a similarly, potentially more extreme, uneven distribution, likely responsible
for the low Mo reproducibility. Overall, duplicate performance was slightly better than in previous years, with higher percentages
of pairs falling within the boundaries of 10%, 20% and 30% variance.
Figure 11-74 through Figure 11-77 show
the variances between duplicate versus original assay values for Au, Cu, Ag, and Mo.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 144 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-74: Comparison of Original
versus Duplicate Gold Values
Figure 11-75: Comparison of Original
versus Duplicate Copper values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 145 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 11-76: Comparison of Original
versus Duplicate Silver values
Figure 11-77: Comparison of Original
versus Duplicate Molybdenum values
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 146 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 11.5.4 | Opinion of Qualified Person |
It is the author’s opinion, as
the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this report, that all parts of the data collection process commencing with drilling
and advancing through geotechnical and geological core logging, core sampling, quality assurance during sampling and insertion of “Standard
Reference Material” (SRMs), blank material and duplicate sampling, and security during shipping, meets NI 43-101 standards.
The analytical procedures employed are
appropriate for the mineralogy of the Casino deposit that is the subject of this technical report. Additionally, the percentage and variety
of SRM samples, quality of blank samples, and degree of duplicate sampling is adequate to provide an indication of the level of quality
control employed by the labs involved. In 2021, duplicate sampling protocol varied depending on the drilling campaign (metallurgical,
resource confirmation, geotechnical or exploration) conducted. All data are adequate for the purposes of resource estimation and for use
in this technical report.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 147 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
This section contains a summary and review
of the data entry and data verification related to the Casino Project. Several phases of exploration have taken place related to the project
and the data entry and verification processes are discussed for each phase. The phases of exploration included diamond drilling programs
dated 1992 through 1994 performed by PSG Exploration, followed by exploration by Western dated 2008 through 2010. Under Western, a transition
to a new data system was implemented in 2013 and has continued since. The most recent exploration phase relevant to this report is dated
2021, although the resource estimate excludes the 2021 data.
Data entry and verification for the 1992
through 1994 programs were reviewed. Further, the author has reviewed a selection of original scanned drill logs and analytical certificates
as compared with data in the current Casino Project database.
Data collection, entry and verification
for the drilling programs conducted by Western from 2008 through 2010 has been reviewed. In addition, the author has reviewed original
reports about the programs, and compared a selection of original drill logs and analytical results to the data within the current database.
A transition to an updated database system,
GeoSpark Core, was implemented in 2013 by Western to streamline the data flow and provide automated data validation and checking. All
data ranging from RC drill data from the 1960s to 2013 drill core logging details were merged and imported to the new database system.
The author confirms a validation of the current database against a selection of original scanned drill logs and analytical certificates
has been done, allowing for confidence in the data entry and data validation.
In 2019 the database system, GeoSpark
Core, was used to combine core logging and assay data during the field season. Following the field season, a full audit/verification was
done of all 2019 Collar, Survey and Assay, Alteration, Metallurgical and Lithology data. The 2019 data validation effort has been reviewed
and, for this report, the author has also performed a review on the data entry and data validation related to the 2019 drilling program
through comparison of original reports, original scans of drill logs, and analytical results to the data in the database.
In 2020 and 2021, a full (100%) audit
was done for all logging data, and 20% of assay results were verified at random. Also, all 2020 and 2021 data were digitally logged, eliminating
the need to incorporate scanned logging forms.
Ultimately this section of this report
includes a comprehensive review of the data within the Casino Project database, thus confirming that the data has been generated using
proper procedures, has been correctly entered digitally from the source files, and is suitable for use. Data validated to the database
includes original scanned drill logs, and analytical certificates signed by an authorized individual.
Original 1992 and 1993 field data were
entered by Archer, Cathro and Assoc. and by Nowak and Assoc., both of Vancouver, B.C. Data was entered to a database on site and in the
Vancouver office, by PSG personnel.
Assay, ICP, copper leach data, check
assays and specific gravities were downloaded from the Chemex Labs computer-based data access system.
Pacific Sentinel Gold Corp. personnel
entered the down-hole surveys and the collar surveys and were responsible for making corrections from the data verification process.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 148 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
For the 2008 through 2012 exploration
programs, field data processing and reporting were contracted to Casselman Geological Services Ltd. of Whitehorse, YT by Western.
Drill hole logging, sampling and geotechnical
data were entered directly by the geologist or geotechnical logger working on the core into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Upon completion
of each hole, these files were submitted to the Project Manager for checking. Upon receipt of analytical data from the lab, the data was
merged with the sample intervals by the Project Manager and the data was then verified.
All data were entered into Microsoft
Excel spreadsheets organized into a standardized format. Once the data were checked it was posted on the Western FTP site. The data was
then merged into Geosoft Target software for creation of drill plans, drill sections, and 3D modelling.
A transition to an updated database system,
“GeoSpark Core”, was implemented in 2013 by Western to streamline the data flow and provide automated data validation and
checking. All data ranging from 1960s RC drill data to 2013 drill core logging details were merged and imported to the new database system.
Similar procedures to those used from
2008 through 2010 were used to collect the hydrogeological and water well drill data in 2013.
In 2019, all data were initially transcribed
onto paper. Each part of the data logging was captured on a different piece of paper formatted for that specific data. Sample interval
data was written directly onto the portion of the sample tag books that does not go into the sample bags during cutting.
The completed sample books were then
checked by the Project Manager and stored in a secure cabinet in the geology office. The core logger was responsible for collecting all
the data sheets in a file folder and scanning to digital files upon completion of the hole. These digital files were then uploaded to
the Western remote server. Original paper copies were then filed in a secure cabinet in the geology office at the Casino Project site.
The Project Manager would then ensure that each file folder for each hole had all the required data sheets, including Downhole Survey
forms submitted by the drillers.
Down hole survey information was recorded
digitally by the DeviShot downhole survey tool and then downloaded directly from the digital recorder by the Project Manager. This data
was checked by the Project Manager and the digital files were uploaded to the Western server. Collar surveying was performed by surveyors
from CAP Engineering and this data was provided to the Project Manager for addition to the main Casino Project database.
Upon completion of the field season,
all 2019 data was entered into GeoSpark Core using the digital scans of the original core logging data. GeoSpark Core contains built-in
checks to ensure a clean and usable dataset. Libraries of all data (e.g., lithology codes) link to each portion of the data entry so only
codes that are checked and utilized by the project are accepted. Digital survey files that are downloaded from the downhole survey tool
were imported directly into GeoSpark. Assay files from the lab were also directly imported without manipulation.
During the 2020 field season, all field
data was entered directly into GeoSpark Core, using the same built-in checks and library codes as in 2019 to ensure a clean and usable
dataset. The field geologists provided semi-weekly exports from GeoSpark to the Database Manager who then compiled all the core logging
data in the central database using GeoSpark. Digital survey files were downloaded from the downhole survey tool and also provided to the
Database Manager for import into GeoSpark. Assay files received directly from the lab were imported by the Database Manager to GeoSpark.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 149 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
During the 2021 field season, all field
data was again entered directly into GeoSpark Core. A revised lithological dataset comprising a significantly more detailed stratigraphic
column, subdivided into “Pre-mineral Wall Rock Units”, “Early Mineral Units”, “Intermediate Units”
and “Late to Post-Mineral Units” was utilized. Otherwise, the 2021 program utilized essentially the same methodology. The
field geologists provided semi-weekly exports from GeoSpark to the Database Manager who then compiled all the core logging data in the
central database using GeoSpark. Digital survey files were downloaded from the downhole survey tool and also provided to the Database
Manager for import into GeoSpark. Assay files received directly from the lab were imported by the Database Manager to GeoSpark.
The 2021 logging data and results were
not incorporated into the updated resource estimate.
For the purposes of this report, the
author has visually verified five percent of original, scanned paper drill logs, and original, drill hole sample assay certificates, compared
to the digital data used in the resource assessment. This verification amounted to review of 26 original drill logs and one excel
file (containing re-logged primary lithologies and alterations), as well as 32 original, signed, assay certificates gold, silver, copper,
and molybdenum analytical results, compared to the digital data within the project database.
The author has found no errors in the
data transcription. This infers that the errors mentioned below have been addressed and provides further confidence in the data within
the database.
The data verification process was performed
under the supervision of a geologist familiar with the site logging procedures. In teams of two, one person read the original certificate,
information sheet or logging form out loud while the other visually scanned the database printouts. Differences between the two were noted
and corrected on the printout and the digital database. When required, a second pass was done on selected data.
The procedure for correcting errors was
to highlight the value in question and to write the correct value beside it. Occasionally, the verification of field logs was followed
up by a geologist familiar with logging and sampling techniques.
In addition, validations occurred throughout
the exploration programs with ongoing monitoring and validation of field logs and analytical results, during the entire PSG Exploration
endeavors.
The data verification process was performed
under the supervision of the Project Manager. When errors were observed in geological, geotechnical, or sample intervals, the Project
Manager and geologist or technician would go back to the core and/or original notes or sample tag booklets and sort out the error and
make necessary corrections.
Data verification was performed on an
ongoing basis. At times where data were first recorded on paper, original copies of the hand notes were kept for future reference.
In verification of field logs, when it
was unclear which value was correct, a decision was made by a geologist familiar with logging and sampling techniques.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 150 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The data verification process was performed
under the supervision of the Project Manager/Senior Geologist on site. Digital scans of all the original core logs and related data were
used to compare directly to the data that had been entered into GeoSpark Core software. The core log data was split up into sections (e.g.,
Assays were one section and Lithology was another) and assigned to two separate people to verify. Each person was also given a full Excel
export of the master database, with which they would be comparing the original log scans. After each section was verified, the person
who performed the work would submit a memo outlining the errors encountered and possible solutions to these errors to the Database Manager.
The Database Manager would then work through the errors and make changes, when warranted. A complete review (100% of the records) was
done for Assays, Alteration, Metallurgy, Lithology, Collars and Surveys. Assays were compared directly to the original assay certificates.
Collar data was compared directly to the surveys performed by CAP Engineering and the logging forms and Downhole Survey data was compared
directly to the exports from the DeviShot survey tool; all other data was compared directly to the core log scans. A partial (approximately
20%) review was then completed by the database manager for Geotechnical and Specific Gravity data by comparing the master database records
to the original log scans.
Upon completion of 2019 data verification,
the Project Manager reviewed the errors found and made changes where warranted. In cases where it was unclear what data were correct,
the Project Manager would review related information (e.g., notes/comments on the logs and core photos) and make a final decision based
on that related data and on extensive knowledge of the project itself. Overall, the data were in good shape, with occasional missing records
or incorrect codes (e.g., POT instead of PRO for an alteration interval) entered during the first phase of data transcribing from original
logs to GeoSpark. There were very few errors found during the partial review of the Geotechnical and Specific Gravity data; a complete
review (100%) of this data was not conducted at the time due to the initial 20% pass finding so few errors and because a 20% verification
is considered acceptable by the manager for this data.
Verification of the 2020 data involved
a three-step process. As in 2019, Step One in 2020 utilized the GeoSpark Core program in the field to collect core logging data. Assay
results were imported directly from the laboratory into the program. As the data was collected and the logging of each hole was completed,
geologists in the field would visually review the digital core log for accuracy and use the validation tools within GeoSpark Core to complete
Step One of verification. The database manager compiled all core logging data received from the field, imported assay results received
directly from the lab and visually verified the data during this process.
The second stage of verification was
completed by two consulting geologists who did a complete audit of the 2020 Collar, Survey, Assay, Alteration, Metallurgical, Lithology,
Structural and Geotechnical data. As in 2019, after each section was verified, the person who performed the work would submit a memo outlining
the errors encountered, and possible solutions to these errors, to the Database Manager. The Database Manager would then work through
the errors and make changes, when warranted. A 20% verification of assay data was completed by comparing the original assay certificate
to the values imported into GeoSpark.
Upon completion of 2020 data verification,
the Database Manager reviewed the errors found and made changes where warranted. In cases where it was unclear what data were correct,
the Database Manager would review related information (e.g., notes/comments on the logs and core photos) and make a final decision based
on that related data and on extensive knowledge of the project itself. Overall, the data were in good shape, with occasional missing records
due to issues during import and typos in data entry (e.g., CAP litho code entered in the middle of 100 m of WRGD). Any missing data was
located and imported, and typos were corrected.
The final stage of verification took
place when the lithology, metallurgy and alteration surfaces were updated with the 2020 logging data, imported into a 3D model, and then
compared with historic data. Finalized copper soluble assay data were also used to confirm the metallurgical zones more precisely. There
were no major errors in the logging data when compared against historic logging data in 2D and 3D views, but the soluble copper assays
did provide clarity for the metallurgical zone boundaries and those new values were added to the database as a relog to preserve the original
logged data while allowing for use of the updated information.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 151 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
In 2021 there was a two-stage verification
process beginning with a check of 100% of all Collar, Downhole Survey, Alteration, Metallurgy, Lithology, Structure, Geotechnical and
Specific Gravity data records. This initial stage was then followed by a check of 20% of all assay intervals.
The audit was performed using data exported
from the Geospark Core database (Geospark). Geologists in the field were responsible for checking their core logs at the end of each hole,
but the final verification was performed by staff of Western Copper and Gold and then reviewed by the Database Manager. The process for
checking the database exports involved looking for discrepancies or gaps of information in each different section.
Verification commenced with a review
of the collar data. Information recorded in GeoSpark was compared to the table of surveyed coordinates provided by Challenger Geomatics,
and all Geospark records were found to be a match for coordinate data. Collar azimuth and dip data was then compared to downhole survey
data. For holes with downhole surveys, this information was found to match. Finally, the depth of the hole was compared to logged data
(e.g., lithology). One hole (DDH 21-21) was found to have an incorrect final depth listed on the collar data; this was corrected to match
the related logging records.
The next section verified was the Downhole
Survey database. For this, it was important to compare the survey information with that shown in the collars. If the surveys either did
not commence near the top of the hole, didn’t extend to the bottom of each drillhole, were missing a reading over a significant
interval, or had significant variations in the azimuth readings, this information would be noted in the verification process. Several
holes did not have downhole surveys provided by the drilling company and could not be located upon downloading directly from the survey
tool. Drill holes with completed downhole surveys were found to be mostly correct and in line with collar azimuth, dip, and hole depth.
In cases where the azimuth or dip did not match with the rest of the hole, the magnetic vector usually indicated a bad measurement, and
this data was not used for plotting.
Drillhole samples were found to have
no gaps, and all holes were sampled from the overburden-bedrock interface to the end of the hole.
There were few errors in the remaining
drill log data and those that did occur were mainly missing intervals or gaps in data. These were located in the original exports sent
by the core logging geologists and have been corrected.
For the final stage of assay verification,
a random subset of 20% of all assay samples was chosen using the RAND function in Excel. This subset of 548 assayed samples was then compared
directly with the original ALS Certificates.
For the purposes of this report, the
author has verified five percent of original drill logs and drill sample assays with the data used in the resource assessment. This involved
visually comparing the analytical results for gold, silver, copper, and molybdenum within the original scans of signed assay certificates
with assay data in the database, and visual comparison of primary lithology and alteration data and the corresponding intervals of the
scanned paper logs to the data in the database, as well as review of re-logged data where applicable. There were no discrepancies found
during this verification. This infers that the errors noted below related to earlier reviews have been addressed.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 152 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The geological logs had some errors introduced
when the data entry personnel were unclear of the recording method the geologist was using. Additionally, changing definitions of many
of the lithology types required re-logging of many of the holes in the 1992 and 1993 programs. The process of combining the information
from the old and new logs introduced some errors into the database. Due to the number of discrepancies encountered in the Geology data
of the 1992 and 1993 programs, a second verification of lithologies and alteration was performed after the errors detected in the first
pass were corrected. Since the re-logging of the historic core in 2010, these errors associated with geological, mineralogical or alteration
logging have been eliminated.
There were very few errors in the database.
The most common error observed was in geological or sample intervals, where the “To” recording of a previous sample did not
match the “From” recording of the subsequent sample. These were generally easy to sort out by the geologist or geotechnical
logger.
Discrepancies with the assay, ICP and
copper leach data involved values below the detection limit. Occasionally, “less than” symbols (<) were misplaced for the
lower detection limit values. Anomalously high ICP values were occasionally rounded off differently in the assay certificates than in
the assay data downloaded from the computer bulletin board.
The geotechnical logs were checked by
the computer to find intervals with combinations of parameters that were suspect. These intervals were extracted from the database and
the suspect values were checked against the originals and against other available information, such as core photos, to determine if they
were in error. A large majority of the extracted parameters were correct and considered to be caused by normal variance of geotechnical
characteristics.
Errors detected in the field data of
the geological logs, geotechnical logs, synoptic logs, specific gravity logs and down-hole survey data were often a result of human error
in recording the original or in transcription. Wherever possible, computer checks were done on the data; several types of errors were
detected this way.
Errors found in the specific gravity
data were due to the geotechnician assigning the wrong sample number to the interval from which the specific gravity was taken. These
errors were detected by a computer check and confirmed by the data verification personnel.
A complete data audit took place following
the 2019 exploration program at the Casino Project. The data audit included a 100% audit of: Assay Data, Alteration Data, Metallurgical
Data, Lithography Data, Survey Data and Collar Location.
The audit was performed using exported
data from the Geospark Core database.
There were two main types of errors encountered
during the verification process: missing records that had not been imported or entered and incorrect codes/typos. Overall, there were
very few errors in the data entry, and all could be easily corrected by the project manager. Missing data was imported in the case of
assay certificates or entered from original logs in the case of logging information.
As GeoSpark Core catches the inherent
errors that crop up from manual entry into Excel or Access, the 2019 dataset was ready for import into other software for maps, cross
sections and 3D modeling directly after the audit and verification process.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 153 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
In 2020, data verification identified
several instances of missing data that was not imported into the main database. Data that was not imported but located in digital logs
was subsequently imported. Any data missed during logging was entered or corrected based on core photographs, assay results, or results
from nearby holes. Certain parameters, such as metallurgical zones and alteration, were omitted where drilling was outside the pit shell
(metallurgical zones) or not present in visually detectable amounts (e.g., alteration). In rare cases, such as abandoned holes, portions
of holes were found to be unlogged or to have certain aspects, such as specific gravity or geotechnical logging, omitted from the main
database. Several overlaps of data, particularly lithological, metallurgical and alteration data, were also detected in Geospark during
the logging process and rectified.
For the purposes of this report, the
author has verified five percent of original drill logs and drill sample assays to the data used in the resource assessment. For pulp
check samples, 5% of the total represented 117 samples. This involved visually comparing the analytical results for gold, silver,
copper, and molybdenum within the original scans of signed assay certificates to assay data in the database. It also involved visual comparison
of scanned paper drill logs, focusing primary on lithology and alteration data and the corresponding intervals to the data in the database,
as well as review of re-logged data where applicable. There were no discrepancies found during this verification. This infers that the
errors noted below that are related to earlier reviews have been addressed.
The results in the certificates matched
the values in the database in every sample that was checked. In some cases, where an overlimit or lower detection limit value is shown
on the certificate, the database will replace these values with the value of the overlimit (e.g., >10,000 ppb Au on the certificate
will be 10, 000 ppb in the database) or the negative value of the lower detection limit (e.g., <0.1 ppb Au on the certificate will
be -0.1 ppb Au in the database). All of the overlimit or lower detection limit replacements were correct. One sample had no assay values
but was shown to have “NSS” (“Not Sufficient Sample”) on the certificate. One sample had no values for Germanium
(Ge), and the missing value for Ge was re-imported.
| 12.4 | Opinion of Qualified Person |
It is the author’s opinion, as
the Qualified Person responsible for this section of this report, that the data for the Casino Project meets NI 43-101 standards and is
adequate for the purposes of resource estimation and for use in this technical report.
All parts of the data collection process
from drilling, sampling, and logging to shipping, assaying and verification have been reviewed by the author or personnel reporting to
the author. It is the author’s opinion that the Casino Project database has been maintained at high quality both in 2021 and previously.
In addition, the author can confirm that
a five percent verification on scanned, original drill logs and signed, original assay certificates compared to the data in the Casino
Project database has been done, and that no errors in the data transcription.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 154 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13 | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing |
The Casino Project will produce copper
flotation concentrates with contained gold and silver values, and molybdenite flotation concentrates. Gold in the form of doré,
and a high-grade copper sulphide product will also be produced from an oxide ore heap leach. All products will be shipped offsite for
sale or further processing.
| 13.1 | Metallurgical Samples |
In the test work commissioned by Pacific
Sentinel Gold in the mid 90’s, all samples used were assay rejects that were nominally minus 10 mesh in particle size. These assay
rejects were combined to prepare composites that were sent to Lakefield Research for flotation and other testing under the direction of
Melis Engineering, Ltd., to Brenda Process Technology for flotation testing, and to Kappes, Cassiday and Associates for copper and gold
leaching.
The source of samples for all the 2008
work was split HQ core that was retrieved from site in September 2007. The core had been at site since it was drilled in 1993 and
1994 but was stored under cover.
Samples for the G&T Metallurgical
Services (G&T) test program reported in early 2011 were split from fresh core from the 2010 drill program.
Samples for the comminution testing performed
by Starkey and Associates (Starkey), FLSmidth, and comminution and flotation testing by G&T reported in early 2012 were retrieved
in 2011 from the 1993 to 2010 drill programs and consisted of split core. Two shipments of half drill samples were received at G&T
metallurgical. One shipment was used to construct five composites for metallurgical testing and one shipment was used to construct 11
composites for ore hardness testing. A portion of each of the 11 composites, crushed to minus 1.5 inches, was split out for SAG Design
testing at FLSmidth.
A drill program to retrieve fresh hypogene
core was completed in early 2012 and split core from this drilling campaign was used for the flotation tests reported by G&T in December
2012.
In June 2013, six bulk samples of different
lithologies, identified as MET-02, MET-05, MET-11, MET-7, MET-19 and MET-20, were collected (William Dunn Enterprises) from just below
the surface of the deposit using an excavator and were used for heap leaching studies performed by SGS E&S Engineering Solutions Inc.
(SGS) in Tucson, Arizona reported in October 2014 and hydrodynamic characterization performed by HydroGeoSense in Tucson, Arizona reported
in 2015. Three composites were made from the six samples, MET-02 and MET-05 samples were combined to generate Composite 1, MET-11 and
MET-17 samples were combined to generate Composite 2 and MET-19 and MET-20 samples were combined to generate Composite 3. Approximately
89 kg of Composite 1 and 89 kg of Composite 2 were sent to HydroGeoSense.
In September 2020, Aurora Geosciences
collected 10 met samples, each taken from near surface (0.5 m or greater below the overburden-bedrock interface) using an excavator for
metallurgical testing. The samples were sent to SGS Canada Burnaby laboratory for metallurgical testing to investigate the optimal crush
size for heap leaching reported in 2021. Three 300 kg composites representing fresh ore from the WR (MET-02/MET-05), PP (MET19/MET20),
and IX (MET11/MET17) lithologies were prepared. The composites were each crushed to P100 of 19 mm. 50 kg of each composite was split out,
screened and assayed. Approximately 60 kg of each composite sample was sent to HydroGeoSense in Tucson, Arizona for hydrodynamic
characterization reported in 2022.
The QP was not involved in the collection
of samples for testing, or the test work completed on the samples. The QP has reviewed the sample preparation, analysis, and security
for collection of the metallurgical samples discussed in the available test reports and considers it reliable. Data verification work
for drill logs and drill sample assays is described in Section 9 of this report and is believed to be reliable. The QP is not aware of
any limitations on or failure to conduct appropriate data verification for samples used for the metallurgical testing.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 155 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The QP believes that tests were performed
using standard quality assurance / quality control (QA / QC) procedures. The QP reviewed all available test work to form an opinion regarding
the mineral processing and metallurgical testing and is of the opinion that the data available is adequate for the purposes of the Feasibility
Study.
In 2008 SGS Lakefield, under the direction
of SGS MinnovEX, performed a comprehensive comminution study. Fifty (50) split drill core samples, representing the first six (6)
years of production were sent to SGS and subjected to several tests.
A summary of the comminution results
is presented in Table 13-1. As SGS reports, the samples tested were characterized as medium in hardness from the perspective of semi-autogenous
milling and of medium in hardness with respect to ball milling.
Table 13-1: Summary of Comminution
Results
| Test |
CEET |
SPI |
RWI |
BWI |
MBWI |
AI |
| Name |
CI |
(Min) |
(kWh/t) |
(kWh/t) |
(kWh/t) |
(g) |
| Average |
29.2 |
52.9 |
9.9 |
14.5 |
14.3 |
0.265 |
| Std. Dev. |
13.9 |
20.8 |
5.6 |
2.6 |
1.6 |
0.046 |
| Rel. Std. Dev. |
47.5 |
39.3 |
56.5 |
18.1 |
11.3 |
17.0 |
| Minimum |
13.5 |
12.6 |
0.0 |
11.2 |
11.4 |
0.226 |
| 10th Percentile |
15.3 |
31.4 |
4.4 |
12.1 |
12.5 |
0.232 |
| 25th Percentile |
19.1 |
37.4 |
11.1 |
13.3 |
13.0 |
0.242 |
| Median |
24.1 |
50.3 |
12.5 |
14.1 |
14.1 |
0.252 |
| 75th Percentile |
38.0 |
63.4 |
13.0 |
15.9 |
15.6 |
0.275 |
| 90th Percentile |
52.3 |
82.5 |
13.0 |
17.3 |
16.3 |
0.309 |
| Maximum |
66.9 |
114.1 |
13.0 |
18.2 |
18.3 |
0.332 |
Additional comminution testing was performed
in 2012 under the direction of both FLSmidth and Starkey and Associates at FLSmidth laboratories and G&T Metallurgical Services. This
program tested 11 composites of ore representing a combination of different zones, lithologies and alterations. The 11 composites represent
over 80% of the material that will be processed through the mill.
CMC geologists mapped zones, lithologies
and alterations that were not tested to similar composites that were tested.
The 11 comminution composites were subjected
to a series of tests at G&T’s laboratory and FLSmidth’s laboratory. The test results are summarised in the following Table
13-2 and Table 13-3.
Table 13-2: Summary of G&T SAG
Mill Comminution (SMC) Test Results
| Sample ID |
DWi, kWh/m3 |
DWi, % |
Mia, kWh/t |
Mih, kWh/t |
Mic, kWh/t |
A |
B |
SG |
ta |
| Composite 1 |
4.90 |
39 |
15.5 |
10.8 |
5.6 |
56.7 |
0.95 |
2.64 |
0.53 |
| Composite 2 |
4.35 |
32 |
14.1 |
9.6 |
5.0 |
56.3 |
1.07 |
2.63 |
0.59 |
| Composite 3 |
6.05 |
55 |
18.6 |
13.5 |
7.0 |
61.8 |
0.70 |
2.60 |
0.43 |
| Composite 4 |
6.62 |
63 |
19.8 |
14.6 |
7.6 |
62.3 |
0.64 |
2.63 |
0.39 |
| Composite 5 |
6.69 |
64 |
19.9 |
14.7 |
7.6 |
63.4 |
0.62 |
2.64 |
0.39 |
| Composite 6 |
3.92 |
26 |
13.3 |
8.8 |
4.6 |
62.9 |
1.05 |
2.58 |
0.66 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 156 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Sample ID |
DWi, kWh/m3 |
DWi, % |
Mia, kWh/t |
Mih, kWh/t |
Mic, kWh/t |
A |
B |
SG |
ta |
| Composite 7 |
5.75 |
51 |
18.1 |
13 |
6.7 |
66.4 |
0.67 |
2.58 |
0.45 |
| Composite 8 |
5.60 |
49 |
16.9 |
12.1 |
6.2 |
64.1 |
0.75 |
2.69 |
0.46 |
| Composite 9 |
5.00 |
40 |
16.1 |
11.3 |
5.8 |
67.9 |
0.76 |
2.58 |
0.52 |
| Composite 10 |
9.63 |
90 |
26.3 |
20.9 |
10.8 |
91.3 |
0.30 |
2.67 |
0.27 |
| Composite 11 |
5.69 |
50 |
17.6 |
12.6 |
6.5 |
66.4 |
0.69 |
2.62 |
0.46 |
| Average |
5.84 |
51 |
17.8 |
12.9 |
6.7 |
65.4 |
0.75 |
2.62 |
0.47 |
Table 13-3: Summary of SAG Design
Results and Crushed Bond Test Results
| Sample ID |
DML SAG Design Test Results |
G&T Crushed Bond Test Results |
| Relative Density |
Calc WSAG to 1.7 mm (kWh/t) |
SAG Dis. Bond BWi (kWh/t) |
BWi (kWh/t) |
RWi (kWh/t) |
Ai (g) |
CWi |
| Composite 1 |
2.66 |
8.19 |
16.18 |
13.5 |
12.9 |
0.162 |
9.41 |
| Composite 2 |
2.60 |
6.78 |
17.26 |
14.1 |
12.3 |
0.176 |
10.00 |
| Composite 3 |
2.66 |
9.39 |
15.70 |
14.1 |
14.5 |
0.198 |
13.62 |
| Composite 4 |
2.72 |
12.41 |
18.36 |
15.5 |
15.5 |
0.199 |
13.84 |
| Composite 5 |
2.64 |
9.56 |
18.26 |
15.3 |
14.6 |
0.156 |
11.20 |
| Composite 6 |
2.67 |
5.05 |
16.37 |
13.7 |
10.4 |
0.118 |
10.22 |
| Composite 7 |
2.69 |
7.45 |
16.12 |
13.4 |
12.4 |
0.155 |
14.57 |
| Composite 8 |
2.82 |
7.71 |
17.82 |
15.2 |
14.1 |
0.170 |
12.27 |
| Composite 9 |
2.57 |
6.48 |
14.35 |
12.9 |
11.4 |
0.158 |
11.03 |
| Composite 10 |
2.71 |
11.68 |
18.93 |
16.6 |
14.9 |
0.161 |
13.23 |
| Composite 11 |
2.67 |
8.50 |
17.23 |
15.1 |
13.5 |
0.170 |
10.33 |
| Average |
2.67 |
8.47 |
16.96 |
14.5 |
13.3 |
0.166 |
11.79 |
A circuit consisting of one 40 ft diameter
(12.2 m) SAG mill and two 28 ft diameter (8.5 m) ball mills in closed circuit with two pebble crushers was selected, based on discussions
with M3 and FLSmidth as a circuit that would likely meet the design tonnage. This circuit was modelled by FLSmidth using the parameters
developed by SGS, G&T, and FLSmidth for the various composites. The results of this exercise are shown in Table 13-4.
Table 13-4: Predicted Production Rate
| Project Sample Number |
Client Sample Information |
BWi |
Production Rate (t/d) |
| G&T (kWh/t) |
| 1 |
Composite 1 |
13.5 |
133,805 |
| 2 |
Composite 2 |
14.1 |
128,064 |
| 3 |
Composite 3 |
14.1 |
128,064 |
| 4 |
Composite 4 |
15.5 |
116,582 |
| 5 |
Composite 5 |
15.3 |
118,018 |
| 6 |
Composite 6 |
13.7 |
131,818 |
| 7 |
Composite 7 |
13.4 |
134,798 |
| 8 |
Composite 8 |
15.2 |
118,790 |
| 9 |
Composite 9 |
12.9 |
139,987 |
| 10 |
Composite 10 |
16.6 |
108,854 |
| 11 |
Composite 11 |
15.1 |
119,674 |
| Average |
14.5 |
125,314 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 157 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13.3.1 | 2008 G&T Metallurgical Work |
In 2008, Western and G&T Metallurgical
reviewed the previous metallurgical work and developed an updated flotation program. To prevent oxidation, the program used split drill
core rather than assay rejects as it had been done for the previous work.
The work focused on two composites at
two different levels of oxide copper – an “oxide composite” and a “sulphide composite”. The composites were
prepared to be close to the average grade of ore received for the first 5 years. Assays for these composites are shown in Table 13-5.
Table 13-5: G&T Flotation Composite
Assays
|
Composite |
Cu (%) |
Mo (%) |
Fe |
Au |
| Total |
WAS* |
CNS** |
Total |
AS |
(%) |
(g/t) |
| Oxide Composite |
0.275 |
0.132 |
0.042 |
0.019 |
0.006 |
3.225 |
0.345 |
| Sulphide Composite |
0.260 |
0.016 |
0.032 |
0.021 |
0.002 |
3.525 |
0.255 |
* Weak Acid Soluble
** Agent that affects the Central
Nervous System
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copper recovery and grade from the oxide
composite was very poor. Various combinations of sulphidizing the ore, changing grind size, using different reagents were attempted. Based
on the poor performance of the oxide flotation, no further testing on the oxide composite was performed.
| 13.3.1.2 | Sulphide Composite |
Copper recovery from the sulphide composite
was much better than that achieved for the oxide composite. Copper concentrate grades greater than 28% were routinely achieved.
Copper recoveries of 70-82% were obtained
into concentrates grading from 26.8 to 32.2% copper in cleaner tests. Good recovery of copper was obtained with both a primary grind with
K80’s of 147 and 121 µm and regrinds with K80’s less than 22 µm. A coarser grind with a K80 of 209 µm was
examined in rougher tests and shown to be less favorable than the finer particle sizes selected for cleaner testing.
| 13.3.1.3 | Locked Cycle Tests |
Duplicate locked cycle tests at both
primary grind K80’s of 121 µm and 147 µm were performed as well as one locked cycle at a primary K80 of 209 µm.
The results from these tests indicate that a grind with a K80 of 147 µm, 85.6% copper can be recovered into a 28.5% copper concentrate.
Molybdenum recovery was variable and ranged from 26.5% to 69.4%. Gold recovery was more consistent and averaged 64.0%.
| 13.3.1.4 | Variability Testing |
A total of 63 individual split drill
core intervals were tested for variability. These samples were chosen to primarily represent the first six years of production and covered
a broad range of total copper, acid soluble copper, molybdenum, and gold values. Each of these samples was individually ground and floated
in a cleaner test with regrind under the conditions determined from the locked cycle tests.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 158 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13.3.2 | 2009-2011 G&T Metallurgical Work |
| 13.3.2.1 | 2009 Fresh Core Tests |
The 2009 drilling campaign included two
holes in the middle of the deposit – CAS-002 and CAS-003. A composite from CAS-002 had 92% copper recovery into a concentrate grading
about 28% copper in cleaner tests. Similarly, a composite from CAS-003 had 87% of the copper in the feed recovered into a concentrate
grading 26% copper. Molybdenum recoveries were high in both tests at approximately 90%.
| 13.3.2.2 | 2010 Supergene Sulphide Composite Tests |
The material tested in the 2010 test
program (reported at the beginning of 2011) was a composite of supergene material that was obtained from the drilling campaigns in 2009
and 2010. This material represented ore that will be fed to the mill in the later years of the operation. The feed grade averaged 0.30%
copper and 0.037% molybdenum.
One of the main objectives of the 2010
test program was to evaluate coarser grinds than were tested in the 2008 test program. Results of this evaluation indicate that copper
flotation response is virtually unaffected by primary grind size between 142 and 253 µm for this composite. Molybdenum flotation
recovery to the bulk rougher concentrate was lower at grinds coarser than 179 µm. Molybdenum recovery was also reduced at elevated
pH levels.
| 13.3.2.3 | 2010 Supergene Sulphide Composite Locked Cycle Tests |
Locked cycle tests at primary grind K80’s
of 142 µm and 222 µm were performed. The results from these tests are presented in Table 13-6. The effect of regrind size
on bulk concentrate copper grade and the effect of primary grind and regrind size on molybdenum recovery are indicated in the table below.
Table 13-6: 2010 Supergene Sulphide
Composite Locked Cycle Test Results
| Test |
P. Grind
K80 µm |
Regrind
K80 µm |
Cycle |
Assay |
Distribution - percent |
| Cu (%) |
Mo (%) |
Fe (%) |
Au (g/t) |
Cu |
Mo |
Fe |
Au |
| KM2721-33 |
222 |
19 |
IV |
30.8 |
1.6 |
23.6 |
20.2 |
82.9 |
34.7 |
5.2 |
71.9 |
| KM2721-33 |
222 |
19 |
V |
28.2 |
1.4 |
26.5 |
19.9 |
81.6 |
34.2 |
6.2 |
69.7 |
| KM2721-34 |
222 |
20 |
IV |
26.1 |
1.6 |
25.7 |
17.8 |
88.6 |
48.8 |
7.0 |
68.4 |
| KM2721-34 |
222 |
20 |
V |
25.7 |
1.5 |
26.6 |
19.9 |
86.6 |
45.1 |
7.5 |
64.7 |
| KM2721-35 |
142 |
19 |
IV |
26.3 |
1.9 |
27.8 |
18.6 |
87.3 |
57.1 |
7.1 |
71.4 |
| KM2721-35 |
142 |
19 |
V |
25.1 |
1.7 |
27.6 |
16.1 |
86.4 |
54.3 |
7.6 |
66.1 |
| KM2721-36 |
222 |
37 |
IV |
17.8 |
1.4 |
31.1 |
13.1 |
81.7 |
55.7 |
9.6 |
67.0 |
| KM2721-36 |
222 |
37 |
V |
18.8 |
1.4 |
30.4 |
10.1 |
82.8 |
51.2 |
10.9 |
61.5 |
| KM2721-37 |
222 |
31 |
IV |
21.2 |
1.4 |
31.1 |
11.7 |
83.2 |
54.1 |
9.2 |
62.4 |
| KM2721-37 |
222 |
31 |
V |
20.8 |
1.7 |
31.3 |
11.7 |
83.9 |
59.7 |
9.9 |
65.7 |
Pyrite flotation was examined as a process
to produce tailings samples that had low levels of residual sulphur, and thus could be deemed non-acid generating (NAG).
The locked cycle tests outlined in Table
13-6 included a pyrite rougher to reduce the sulphide concentration of the tailings. Pyrite flotation tailings from these tests obtained
tailings averaging less than 0.08% sulphur.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 159 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13.3.3 | 2011-2012 G&T Metallurgical Work |
Western retained International Metallurgical
and Environmental to assist in the metallurgical testing and continued to perform the testing at G&T Metallurgical Services (name
changed to ALS Metallurgy in late 2012).
| 13.3.3.1 | Flowsheet Development |
In previous testing campaigns, to achieve
acceptable recoveries from the conventional copper flotation flowsheet’s tested, 15-20% of the feed material needed to be reground.
The focus of the flowsheet development was to reduce the material sent to the regrind mills.
The flowsheet development centered on
a flowsheet where rougher concentrate was sent to the first cleaning stage prior to regrinding, the first cleaner concentrate went to
regrinding and the second and third cleaner tails were returned to the first cleaner. By utilizing this flowsheet, the amount of feed
material that needed to be reground dropped from 15-20% to 3 to 5%.
Locked cycle test results from the composites
tested using this flowsheet are shown in Table 13-7. The results show similar recoveries to previous test work using a conventional copper
flotation flowsheet.
Table 13-7: Flowsheet Development
Locked Cycle Test Results
| Composite |
Tests |
P. Grind
K80 µm |
Regrind
K80 µm |
Assay |
Distribution (%) |
|
Cu
(%) |
Mo (%) |
S (%) |
Au (g/t) |
Cu |
Mo |
S |
Au |
| HYP1 |
38, 42 |
218 |
19 |
26.0 |
1.98 |
33.1 |
24.6 |
82.1 |
64.9 |
24.9 |
61.1 |
| HYP2 |
39, 43 |
216 |
16 |
26.3 |
1.31 |
32.8 |
23.9 |
81.7 |
37.1 |
14.6 |
56.1 |
| SUS1 |
44, 46 |
192 |
17.5 |
21.8 |
1.77 |
33.9 |
23.6 |
77.7 |
59.5 |
24.9 |
75.9 |
| SUS2 |
47 |
190 |
14 |
24.1 |
0.85 |
38.1 |
28.3 |
62.8 |
32.8 |
20.4 |
64.4 |
| 13.3.3.2 | Tests using Fresh Core |
While supergene flotation tests were
performed on fresh core obtained during the 2010 campaign, no flotation tests had been performed on fresh hypogene core except for a limited
number of tests performed in 2009.
In 2012, a drilling campaign was executed
to obtain fresh hypogene core from the first years of mining that represented the predominate mineralization that would be fed to the
mill. In total, five holes were drilled (CAS-088 to CAS-093), and from these five holes, three composites were made representing lithologies:
Patton porphyry (PP), Intrusion breccia (IX), and Dawson range batholith (WR).
Table 13-8: Hypogene Composites
| |
Cu (%) |
Mo |
Fe |
Au |
| |
Total |
WAS |
CNS |
(%) |
(%) |
(g/t) |
| PP Composite |
0.14 |
0.004 |
0.008 |
0.030 |
2.95 |
0.22 |
| IX Composite |
0.17 |
0.006 |
0.012 |
0.071 |
2.39 |
0.22 |
| WR Composite |
0.19 |
0.005 |
0.013 |
0.019 |
2.50 |
0.18 |
Locked cycle recoveries using these fresh
composites were significantly better than previous testing on oxidized core and are shown in Table 13-9. Note that the primary grind size
for these tests was also higher than the target of 200 µm, in some cases significantly, so it would be expected that actual
plant recovery would be better than these tests indicate.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 160 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 13-9: Locked Cycle Test Results
| |
|
P. Grind |
Regrind |
Assay - percent or Au g/t |
Distribution (%) |
| Composite |
Tests |
K80 µm |
K80 µm |
Cu (%) |
Mo (%) |
Ag (g/t) |
Au (g/t) |
Cu |
Mo |
Ag |
Au |
| PP |
23 |
234 |
31 |
18.6 |
7.5 |
126 |
15.6 |
89.9 |
77.9 |
46.5 |
57.3 |
| IX |
24 |
254 |
32 |
24.6 |
4.3 |
107 |
24.3 |
87.2 |
78.6 |
46.0 |
55.4 |
| WR |
25 |
211 |
31 |
17.5 |
1.50 |
82 |
13.5 |
91.9 |
89.4 |
53.8 |
67.2 |
| 13.3.3.3 | Pilot Plant Testing and Copper/Molybdenum Separation |
A pilot plant was performed on hypogene,
and supergene composites taken from the drilling campaign to produce representative tailings for environmental testing, geotechnical testing,
and thickener testing and to produce sufficient copper/molybdenum concentrate for copper moly separation tests. Unfortunately, there was
not sufficient feed material to obtain operating information from the pilot plant.
Although suitable copper/molybdenum concentrate
was produced to perform several copper/molybdenum separation tests, only one cleaner test was performed. The results from this test were
sufficiently good to warrant no further testing. The results from this test are shown in Table 13-10.
Table 13-10: Copper/Molybdenum Separation
Cleaner Test
|
Cumulative
Product |
Cum. Weight |
Assay |
Distribution (%) |
| % |
grams |
Cu (%) |
Mo (%) |
Fe (%) |
S (%) |
Cu |
Mo |
Fe |
S |
| Final Conc. |
3.1 |
31.2 |
0.39 |
57.4 |
0.8 |
37.9 |
0.1 |
94.1 |
0.1 |
2.6 |
| Second Conc. |
3.5 |
35.5 |
2.38 |
51.3 |
3.8 |
37.6 |
0.5 |
95.7 |
0.4 |
3.0 |
| Rougher Conc. |
6.1 |
62.5 |
9.04 |
29.7 |
15.3 |
38.0 |
3.5 |
97.4 |
2.9 |
5.3 |
| Tails |
93.9 |
953.8 |
16.5 |
0.05 |
33.9 |
44.3 |
96.5 |
2.6 |
97.1 |
94.7 |
| Feed |
100.0 |
1016.3 |
16.0 |
1.87 |
32.8 |
43.9 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
| 13.3.4 | 2022 ALS Metallurgy Program |
Additional metallurgical work, focusing
on flotation performance, is underway at ALS Metallurgy under the direction of International Metallurgical and Environmental and Rio Tinto
personnel. Although the work is incomplete, the results are consistent with the 2011-2012 G&T Metallurgical program.
| 13.3.4.1 | Interpretation of Flotation Test Results |
The 2012 metallurgical program at ALS
Metallurgy showed good copper recovery to copper concentrates that routinely achieve 28% or greater for various drill core samples from
the deposit using the reagent scheme developed. The conclusions from this work are unambiguous and will be used as the basis of this
study.
| 13.3.4.2 | Supergene – Copper |
It was difficult to achieve good copper
concentrate grades from supergene oxide material that had copper oxide concentrations greater than 25-30% of the total copper. For this
reason, during operation of the mill, supergene oxide ore will need to be blended in with the other ore types to achieve an oxide copper
percentage less than 25%.
The supergene ore contains a certain
percentage of oxide copper minerals (this is what defines it as being supergene material). Oxide copper minerals are poorly recovered
by the flotation process; therefore, in the interpretation of the results, it is important to examine the recovery of sulphide copper
to a copper concentrate. Sulphide copper can be calculated by subtracting the concentration of oxide copper from the total copper. Supergene
mineralization at Casino has been assayed for weak acid soluble copper (WAS), which is approximately equal to the amount of oxide copper
in the sample assayed but may under or over represent the amount of oxide copper present depending on the specifics of the mineralization.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 161 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Sulphide copper recovery as a function
of total copper grade and sulphide copper grade is shown in Table 13-11 for the supergene locked cycle tests by G&T Metallurgical.
Recovery appears to be consistent.
Table 13-11: Supergene Locked Cycle
Recoveries to Concentrate
| |
Feed Assays |
Recovery to Concentrate |
| |
Cu (%) |
Au |
Mo |
Total |
Sulphide |
|
|
| Test |
Total |
WAS |
Sulphide |
(g/t) |
(%) |
Cu |
Cu |
Au |
Mo |
| KM2721 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 33 |
0.3 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.036 |
82.3 |
91.4 |
70.7 |
34.5 |
| 34 |
0.3 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.036 |
87.6 |
97.3 |
66.4 |
46.9 |
| 35 |
0.3 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.036 |
86.8 |
96.4 |
68.8 |
55.7 |
| 36 |
0.3 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.036 |
82.3 |
91.4 |
64.4 |
53.3 |
| 37 |
0.3 |
0.03 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.036 |
83.5 |
92.8 |
64.1 |
57 |
| KM3134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 44 |
0.3 |
0.056 |
0.244 |
0.37 |
0.022 |
79.9 |
98.2 |
75.5 |
64.6 |
| 46 |
0.3 |
0.056 |
0.244 |
0.47 |
0.022 |
75.6 |
93.0 |
76.1 |
54.6 |
| 47 |
0.3 |
0.094 |
0.206 |
0.47 |
0.028 |
62.8 |
91.5 |
64.4 |
32.8 |
Averaging the locked cycle tests results
indicates that an average of 94% of the sulphide copper was recovered to a copper concentrate. This result also closely mirrors the variability
results. Thus, the overall copper recovery for the supergene material will be:
Cu Recovery = 94
x (Cutotal – CuWAS)/(Cutotal)
Averaging the gold recovery from Table
13-11, an average gold recovery of 69% to copper concentrate is obtained:
Au Recovery = 69%
| 13.3.4.4 | Supergene Molybdenum |
In the majority of the tests, no attempt
was made to optimise the molybdenum recovery. For this reason, the molybdenum recovery is quite variable.
Examining the locked cycle tests in Table
13-10, an average molybdenum recovery of 55% to copper concentrate was chosen, which represents the average molybdenum recovery when the
two low outliers are removed.
Recovery of molybdenum from the copper-molybdenum
concentrate to a molybdenum concentrate was not specifically tested for the supergene material, but it is expected to be similar to that
obtained in hypogene tests that achieved approximately 95% molybdenum recovery to a molybdenum concentrate. Molybdenum recovery throughout
the plant is equal to the recovery to the copper-molybdenum concentrate multiplied by recovery to a molybdenum concentrate and is shown
below:
Mo Recovery = 52.3%
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 162 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13.3.4.5 | Supergene – Silver |
Unfortunately, silver recovery was not
determined in all test programs. The 2011 test program followed silver recovery. Averaging the silver recovery from these locked cycle
tests indicates that a silver recovery of 60% should be achievable:
Ag Recovery = 60%
Hypogene recoveries are based on the
December 2012 flotation work performed by ALS Metallurgy on “fresh” core that had been drilled earlier specifically for flotation
test work.
Table 13-12 shows cleaner circuit recoveries
for both copper and molybdenum for all three locked cycle tests with hypogene material. Copper concentrate grades have been corrected
to reflect the removal of molybdenum and represent final concentrate grades in terms of copper.
Table 13-12: Cleaner Circuit Recoveries
for Locked Cycle Test Results
| Test and Cycle No. |
Cu Con Grade
%Cu |
Cu Recovery
% |
Mo Recovery
% |
Au Recovery
% |
| WR Composite |
|
|
|
|
| Cycle 4 |
17.8 |
96.4 |
95.0 |
86.0 |
| Cycle 5 |
17.9 |
96.9 |
95.6 |
88.0 |
| IX Composite |
|
|
|
|
| Cycle 4 |
22.8 |
96.9 |
81.7 |
83.3 |
| Cycle 5 |
21.2 |
96.7 |
80.8 |
80.6 |
| PP Composite |
|
|
|
|
| Cycle 4 |
26.1 |
97.1 |
90.4 |
88.0 |
| Cycle 5 |
26.5 |
97.1 |
91.1 |
84.9 |
Copper, molybdenum, and gold recovery,
when a primary grind size of 200 to 220 µm is used, is summarised in Table 13-12 and is based on both locked cycle testing and open
circuit rougher flotation tests. Molybdenum recovery was variable, and the higher-grade molybdenum sample (IX) had the lowest molybdenum
recovery, indicating that reagent conditions could possibly improve this recovery. Within the cleaning circuit copper and gold recoveries
were similar, irrespective of the final copper concentrate grade.
Table 13-13: Predicted Recoveries
to Copper/Molybdenum Concentrate
| Process Stream |
Cu Recovery, % |
Mo Recovery, % |
Au Recovery, % |
| Rougher Circuit Recovery |
95 |
92 |
78 |
| Cleaner Circuit Recovery |
97 |
90 |
85 |
| Metal Recovery |
92 |
82.8 |
66 |
| 13.3.4.7 | Hypogene – Copper Molybdenum Separation |
One test was performed to determine how
well molybdenum could be separated from a copper/molybdenum concentrate. The test indicated that approximately 95% molybdenum recovery
could be achieved. Thus, the overall recovery of molybdenum will be equal to:
Mo Recovery = 78.7%
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 163 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 13.3.4.8 | Hypogene – Silver Recovery |
Hypogene silver recovery was followed
in the last set of tests on fresh core. Reviewing these recoveries, a silver recovery of 50% was chosen.
Ag Recovery = 50.0%
| 13.3.4.9 | Concentrate Quality |
Estimates of the chemistry of the copper
concentrate are summarised in Table 13-14. The table is comprised of the best estimates of analysis of concentrates produced in test work.
Concentrate chemistry estimation is based on detailed analysis of test products, conducted at various metallurgical test facilities.
Table 13-14: Copper Concentrate Chemistry
| Element |
Average Expected Value |
High Range |
Low Range |
| Copper - % |
28 |
30 |
25 |
| Gold – g/t |
25 |
30 |
15 |
| Silver – g/t |
120 |
180 |
80 |
| Molybdenum -% |
0.05 |
0.1 |
0.02 |
| Iron - % |
26 |
30 |
24 |
| Sulphur - % |
36 |
40 |
28 |
| Arsenic – g/t |
200 |
500 |
100 |
| Antimony – g/t |
250 |
400 |
100 |
| Mercury – g/t |
1 |
2 |
0.1 |
| Cadmium – g/t |
40 |
80 |
20 |
| Fluorine – g/t |
100 |
200 |
50 |
| Silica - % |
2 |
5 |
1 |
Key analytical results for the Casino Project
molybdenum concentrate are summarised in Table 13-15. Limited test work allows for only an average chemistry estimate to be made for the
molybdenum concentrate at this time.
Table 13-15: Molybdenum Concentrate
Chemistry
| Element |
Average Expected Value |
| Molybdenum -% |
56.0 |
| Copper - % |
0.25 |
| Gold – g/t |
1 |
| Silver – g/t |
10 |
| Iron - % |
1 |
| Sulphur - % |
38 |
| Arsenic – g/t |
1500 |
| Antimony – g/t |
100 |
| Mercury – g/t |
<1 |
| Cadmium – g/t |
30 |
| Silica - % |
1.5 |
| Rhenium – g/t |
130 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 164 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Flotation tailing from the 2008 test
program piloting were submitted to Outotec for dynamic high-rate thickening tests. Results were favorable and a thickener underflow of
over 55 percent solids was achieved. Flocculant addition was 22 g/t. The solids loading rate of 1.05 t/m2h was demonstrated.
Rheology on the thickened material was low.
| 13.5.1 | Kappes, Cassiday and Associates (KCA) |
KCA performed two studies in 1995 on
the leaching of the oxide cap (oxide gold zone) and supergene (oxide copper) material. In the first study they leached a selection of
oxide cap material with cyanide. In the second study they examined pre-leaching both oxide cap and supergene material with acid followed
by cyanidation of the residue.
Gold extraction was affected by the quantity
of copper leached during cyanidation and ranged from 10-97.4%. Average gold extraction was 79.9%.
Lime consumption during cyanidation averaged
3.9 kg/t without the acid pre-leach, and 4.1 kg/t with the acid pre-leach. Cyanide consumption was significant, averaging 5.5 kg/t without
the acid pre-leach. There was not a significant difference between the lime consumption for the oxide gold composites and oxide copper
composites.
| 13.5.2 | SGS E&S Engineering Solutions Inc. |
SGS E&S Engineering Solutions Inc.
(at the time METCON) ran two column tests in 2008 on a composite sample blended to create gold and copper concentrations similar to the
average reserve concentrations.
The ore was crushed coarsely to -3.8
cm (-1.5 inch), placed in 15 cm by 6-metre columns, and irrigated at 12 L/h/m2. One column was leached “open cycle”
– a 0.5 g/L NaCN solution was fed to the top of the column and the pregnant solution was collected and assayed. The second column
was conducted as a “locked cycle” and solution was recycled. In the locked cycle column when the copper concentration in solution
exceeded 50 mg/L, the solution was treated through a Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling and Thickening (SART) pilot plant discussed
in the next section, and the gold was recovered on activated carbon.
The gold, silver, and copper extractions
from the open and locked cycle tests compare favorably. Although the gold extraction was slightly higher for the open cycle test, both
tests produced good gold recovery considering the coarse crush size.
Cyanide consumptions were similar based
on titrations and the amount of cyanide added to the system for the locked cycle column at approximately 0.5 kg/t. Lime consumptions were
comparable to the bottle roll test work at approximately 3 kg/t.
Table 13-16: Extractions and Reagent
Consumptions from Open Cycle and Locked Cycle Cyanidation
| |
Assays (calculated head) |
Percent Extraction |
Reagent Consumption
(kg/t) |
| |
(g/t) |
| |
Au |
Ag |
Cu |
Au |
Ag |
Cu |
NaCN* |
NaCN** |
CaO |
| Open |
0.47 |
1.92 |
693 |
69.52 |
25.14 |
17.4 |
0.39 |
|
2.83 |
| Locked |
0.42 |
1.61 |
654 |
65.79 |
27.31 |
18.2 |
0.48 |
0.54 |
3.06 |
| *based on titrations |
| **based on additions |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 165 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A second set of testing was performed in
2013, which investigated metal recovery as a function of lithology. Based on an examination of a mine plan developed in 2013, it was determined
that the heap leach would be primarily composed of Granodiorite (WR), Intrusive Breccia (IX) and Patton Porphyry (PP) lithology types
with argillic (ARG) alteration.
The breakdown of heap leach ore tested
by lithology type is as below:
| Lithology Type |
% of Ore |
| WR - Dawson Granodiorite |
64% |
| IX - Intrusive Breccia |
28% |
| PP - Patton Porphyry |
8% |
The ore was crushed coarsely to -3.8
cm (-1.5 inch), placed in 15 cm by 3-metre columns, and irrigated at 9.78 L/h/m2. Each column was run in duplicate. The columns
were operated in “open cycle”. Solution containing 0.75 g/L free NaCN and 300 mg/L Cu (added to approximate that steady state
Cu concentration that would be used to leach the heap leach ore in practice) was added to the top of the column to irrigate.
Table 13-17: Extractions and Reagent
Consumptions from Column Tests Investigating Lithology
|
Ore
Type |
Head Assays (g/t) |
Percent Extraction |
Reagent Consumption (kg/t) |
| Au |
Ag |
Cu |
Au |
Ag |
NaCN |
CaO |
| WR |
0.27 |
0.85 |
72.3 |
82.56 |
27.97 |
0.26 |
4.34 |
| (dup) |
0.27 |
0.85 |
72.3 |
81.90 |
27.78 |
0.20 |
4.18 |
| average |
- |
- |
- |
82.2 |
27.9 |
0.23 |
4.3 |
| IX |
0.54 |
2.70 |
46.2 |
64.55 |
22.71 |
0.68 |
3.11 |
| (dup) |
0.54 |
2.70 |
46.2 |
62.10 |
16.63 |
0.44 |
3.10 |
| average |
- |
- |
- |
63.3 |
19.7 |
0.56 |
3.1 |
| PP |
0.63 |
2.76 |
73.0 |
75.09 |
26.29 |
0.47 |
3.51 |
| (dup) |
0.63 |
2.77 |
73.0 |
73.28 |
26.01 |
0.19 |
3.38 |
| average |
- |
- |
- |
74.2 |
26.2 |
0.33 |
3.4 |
| Weighted average |
- |
- |
- |
76.3 |
25.4 |
0.33 |
3.3 |
Gold extraction for WR and PP lithologies
are higher than the gold recoveries in previous testing, and gold recovery for IX lithology is higher indicating that there is some variability
in gold extraction based on lithology. Cyanide and lime consumption are more variable but are similar to what was obtained in previous
work.
As described in the Metallurgical Sample
section above, the samples used in the latest SGS work are from the first five (5) metres of the deposit. Samples used in previous SGS
testing (2008 report) were from drill core that was spatially distributed in the heap leach resource. There is a significant difference
in the gold recovery between the locked cycle test completed with SART in the early test and the latest tests as shown in Table 13-18
below.
Table 13-18: Comparison of Recovery
| |
Recovery |
Consumption |
| Au |
Ag |
NaCN |
Lime |
| Locked cycle w/SART 2008 |
66 |
26 |
0.50 |
3.3 |
| Weighted average 2013 |
76.3 |
25 |
0.33 |
3.9 |
SGS Canada Burnaby received ten variability
samples in 2021 for testing. Each sample was screened at four size fractions with each size fraction being assayed. The weighted head
grade of the samples ranged from 0.12 – 0.94 g/t Au, 0.95 to 10 g/t Ag, and 13.8 to 712 g/t Cu. A master composite was made
from the screened size fractions by combining equal weight amounts of each sample (reconstituted from each fraction according to the size
distribution). The Master composite was estimated to have a head grade of 0.46 g/t Au, 2.92 g/t Ag, and 316 g/t Cu. The master composite
was split into two composite samples. One composite was split into two test charges for column tests with one charge being crushed to
100% minus 50 mm (P80 37 mm) and one charge being crushed to 100% minus 19 mm (P80 12.5 mm). The second composite was not crushed and
is considered as ROM for a third column test. Three bottle roll tests (BRT) were also completed on the master composite, one to evaluate
lime consumption, and two standard coarse ore tests to evaluate affect on recovery from copper in solution.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 166 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Parameters for the BRT tests to evaluate
affect of copper in solution included: 1) crush size of 100% minus 10 mesh: 2) 45% solids density: 3) pH of 11 maintained; 4) 1000 ppm
NaCN concentration maintained; and 5) 96 hours leach time. One test had no copper addition (BRT-A), and the other test was spiked with
0.3 g/L Cu as copper sulphate (BRT-B). Both tests had similar results, gold extractions slightly higher than 80%, silver extraction 20%,
and copper extraction about 6%. Gold leach kinetics were also similar with approximately 35-40% gold extraction achieved within the first
6 hours and approximately 70% gold extraction after 48 hours. Gold extraction appeared to be nearing completion after 96 hours but did
not reach a definite plateau. Silver extraction reached a plateau at approximately 20% extraction withing the first 24 hours of leaching.
Parameters for the three column tests
to evaluate effect of crush size on recovery included: 1) crush size (ROM, P80 37 mm, and P80 12.5 mm); 2) pH of 11 maintained, 3) 1000
ppm NaCN and 300 ppm Cu concentration maintained; 4) 10 L/h/m2 irrigation rate target, 5) 75 days leach time. As expected,
gold extraction was higher with a finer crush size; 47% for ROM ore, 69% for the minus 50 mm crushed ore, and 80% for the minus 19 mm
crushed ore after 75 days. Silver extraction was estimated to follow the same trend; 13% for ROM ore, 20% for the 50 mm crushed ore,
and 23% for the minus 19 mm crushed ore. An additional 4 - 7% gold and 1% silver was extracted during a ~14-day rinse. The results of
the column tests suggest that an optimal crush size for heap leaching of the master composite would be a crush size between 19 mm and
50 mm.
Table 13-19 shows the head grade of the
sample used for the column tests at various crush sizes compared to the LOM head grade expected for the project. The gold and silver grade
in the sample tested is 1.5 to 2 times higher than expected for the heap leach.
Table 13-19: Comparison of Head Grade
| |
Au
g/t |
Ag
g/t |
Cu
g/t |
| Master Composite |
0.46 |
2.13 |
313 |
| Life of Mine for Project |
0.27 |
1.95 |
360 |
Previous tests described above with a similar
grade to what is expected for the LOM grade for the project had a leach residue assay for gold of 0.04 to 0.05 g/t. Using this residue
assay with the LOM head grade would result in a gold recovery of 80 to 84%.
In this process, a cyanide solution containing
copper is treated to remove copper—gold is not affected.
In the locked cycle test described previously,
the pregnant leach solution from the column was treated using a SART pilot plant several times before removing the gold with carbon and
recycling the treated fluid to the column. The SART results are summarised in Table 13-20.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 167 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 13-20: SART Results
| Pregnant Solution |
Barren Solution
after SART & Carbon |
Copper |
Reagent Consumption |
|
Free
NaCN
(g/L) |
Cu
(ppm) |
Au
(ppm) |
Ag
(ppm) |
Free
NaCN
(g/L) |
Cu
(ppm) |
Au
(ppm) |
Ag
(ppm) |
Removal
(%) |
(g/L solution treated) |
| S2- |
H2SO4 |
CaO |
| 0.25 |
81 |
0.21 |
0.30 |
0.39 |
6.8 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
91.3 |
0.024 |
0.64 |
0.37 |
| 13.7 | Hydrodynamic Characterization |
HydroGeoSense performed hydrodynamic
characterization of two Casino head samples in 2015 to define the physical and hydraulic response of the ore that was expected to have
a crush size of P100 50 mm, P80 38 mm. The samples included Composites Met 02-05 (WR) and Met 11-17 (IX) which represent 1:1 blends of
the individual samples Met 02 and Met 05; and Met 11 and Met 17, respectively. Table 13-21 shows the head grade of the samples compared
to the expected LOM grade of the ore to be leached.
Table 13-21: Comparison of Head Grade
| |
Au
g/t |
Ag
g/t |
Cu
g/t |
| Life of Mine for Project |
0.27 |
1.95 |
360 |
| Met 02-05 |
0.32 |
1.00 |
100 |
| Met 11-17 |
0.50 |
3.00 |
530 |
The characterization program consisted
of:
| · | Review of available particle size distribution (PSD) information, |
| · | Agglomeration trials to define the optimal moisture content for each PSD, |
| · | Review of metallurgical and mineralogical data, |
| · | Stacking Tests to determine the potential hydrodynamic behavior of the samples to select the most promising
agglomeration conditions, and |
| · | Hydrodynamic Column Tests on three PSD to determine the potential operation conditions |
The samples were tested to determine
the specific gravity of the solids. The average estimated SG for the samples is shown in Table 13-22.
Table 13-22: Solids Specific Gravity
| Met 02-05 (WR) |
Met 11-17 (IX) |
| 2.66 |
2.63 |
Samples were screened and assayed at eight
(8) individual sizes. The grade by size data indicate that Au and Ag are not uniformly distributed along the PSD of these composites.
Met 02-05 has most of its metal value (35%) in the fines, size fractions smaller than 1.7 mm and Met 11-17 has most of its metal value
(>25%) in the coarse material, size fractions larger than 25.4 mm.
Mineral characterization of the two samples
indicates that Au occurs primarily as sub-microscopic native gold. Potential cyanide consuming minerals include metal sulphides including
copper, iron, arsenic, and zinc; iron oxide-hydroxides such as Limonite and Jarosite which can also act as preg-robbing; and secondary
aluminosilicates and swelling clays. Bulk mineralogy indicates the gangue is composed predominantly by quartz and aluminosilicate minerals.
The quartz fraction is quite different from each of the composites, 55.5% for Met 02-05, 41.7% for Met 11-17 and 36.8% for Met 19-20.
Secondary minerals include Kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)) and swelling clays representing 5.5%, 6.0% and 7.7% for Met 02-05, Met 11-17, and
Met 19-20, respectively.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 168 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Key findings from the hydrodynamic characterization
on the samples tested are as follows:
| · | The results from the Hydrodynamic Column Tests (HCTs) confirm that composites Met 02-05 and Met 11-17
will effectively support percolation leaching during the operation. |
| o | The total porosity of the non-agglomerated Met 02-05 at a heap height of 71 m is 31% which compared to
the minimal requirement of 30% may indicate that this condition may not support a heap height beyond 80 m on its own and may need to be
blended or agglomerated to achieve porosity above this height. |
| o | At a 140-m lift height, composite Met 11-17 satisfies the HydroGeoSense requirement that the minimum saturated
hydraulic conductivity be larger than 1,000 times the application rate (assumed for this study as 6 L/h/m2 based on the results
from the hydrodynamic characterization). |
| · | Ore preparation practices (crushing, blending, and agglomeration) may have a significant impact on the
metallurgical performance of the ore. |
In 2022, HydroGeoSense performed hydrodynamic
characterization of three (3) Casino near surface samples representing fresh ore from the main lithology types (WR, PP, and IX) to evaluate
the physical and hydraulic response of the ore that is expected to have a top size of 19 mm and a P80 of approximately 16 mm.
The characterization focused on the percolation capacity for a heap height of up to 110 m representing non-agglomerated ore.
Table 13-23 shows the head grade of the
samples compared to the expected LOM grade of the ore to be leached.
Table 13-23: Comparison of Head Grade
| |
Lithology |
Au
g/t |
Ag
g/t |
Cu
g/t |
| Life of Mine for Project |
- |
0.26 |
1.95 |
340 |
| Average Grade thru Year 5 |
|
0.36 |
2.76 |
427 |
| |
WR |
0.44 |
1.9 |
196 |
| |
IX |
0.47 |
4.3 |
393 |
| |
PP |
0.36 |
2.0 |
514 |
| Weighted average of samples |
|
0.44 |
2.58 |
277 |
The characterization program consisted
of:
| · | Sample drying to determine the as-received moisture content |
| · | Determination of resulting Particle size distribution under dry and wet screening |
| · | Test charge preparation. |
| · | Determination of the specific gravity (SG) for the gravel, sand, and fines fractions. |
| · | Determination of the moisture content to achieve agglomeration levels L1 to L3 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 169 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Physical and hydraulic response under the Stacking Test® (ST) procedure to define the ability
of the samples to support a static heap leach process with the samples to represent a non-agglomerated condition |
| · | Characterization via the Hydrodynamic Column Test® (HCT) to define the potential hydrodynamic
response of the material under percolation leaching. |
The samples were tested to determine
the specific gravity of the solids. The average estimated SG for the samples is shown in Table 13-24.
Table 13-24: Solids Specific Gravity
The bulk density of the samples were measured
representing the first lift (9.1 m for this test) and the bottom lift (after compaction, 105 m) . The bulk density for each of the samples
is shown in Table 13-25.
Table 13-25: Dry Bulk Density (t/m3)
| Lift |
WR |
IX |
PP |
| First |
1.767 |
1.702 |
1.674 |
| Bottom |
1.843 |
1.771 |
1.750 |
The saturation and drain down moistures
of the samples tested were measured representing the first lift (9.1 m for this test) and the bottom lift (after compaction, 105 m). The
saturation moisture for each of the samples is shown in Table 13-26 and the drain down moisture for each of the samples is shown in Table
13-27.
Table 13-26: Saturation Moisture (%)
| Lift |
WR |
IX |
PP |
| First |
8.0 |
7.6 |
8.7 |
| Bottom |
8.4 |
7.4 |
8.3 |
Table 13-27: Drain Down Moisture
(%)
| Lift |
WR |
IX |
PP |
| First |
6.7 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
| Bottom |
6.2 |
5.7 |
6.1 |
Key findings from the hydrodynamic characterization
on the samples tested are as follows:
| · | There is a low level of fines (<75 microns) in all three crushed samples tested. Tests indicate that
agglomeration will likely improve the performance of the heap it is not required. |
| · | All three samples have a sufficiently large percolation capacity to support an irrigation rate of 10 l/hr/m2
without excess liquid saturation. |
| · | The samples are competent ore which are minimally affected by compaction. |
| · | The saturation (operation) moisture ranges from 7.4% to 9.0% versus the 12% used in design. |
| · | The Drain down (residual) moisture content ranges from 5.9% to 6.7% versus 10% used in design. |
| · | There is a good balance between the capillary and body forces which should result in an efficient leaching
process. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 170 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The test samples were not leached with
cyanide, so recovery is not estimated. Results of the HCT’s performed by HydroGeoSense indicate that the hydrodynamic properties
of the samples tested are adequate to support a multi-lift heap leaching process.
| 13.8 | Determination of Recoveries, Reagent, and Other Consumable Consumptions |
As described in the preceding sections,
the recoveries, reagent, and other consumable consumptions shown in Table 13-28 and Table 13-29 will be used. Where values were unknown,
typical values based on M3’s experience are used.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 171 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 13-28: Flotation Operational
Parameters
| Parameter |
Value |
Units |
| Recovery |
|
|
| Copper |
|
|
| Supergene |
Recovery = 94 x (Cutotal – CuWAS)/(Cutotal) |
percent |
| Hypogene |
92 |
percent |
| Gold |
|
|
| Supergene |
69 |
percent |
| Hypogene |
66 |
percent |
| Molybdenum |
|
|
| Supergene |
52.3 |
percent |
| Hypogene |
78.7 |
percent |
| Silver Recovery |
|
|
| Supergene |
60 |
percent |
| Hypogene |
50 |
percent |
| Parameters |
|
|
| Bond work index |
14.5 |
kWh/t |
| Primary grind size (P80) |
200 |
µm |
| Regrind size (P80) |
25 |
µm |
| Reagents |
|
|
| Lime (93% active) |
|
|
| Supergene |
2.7 |
kg/t Ore |
| Hypogene |
1.1 |
kg/t Ore |
| Aerophine 3418A |
|
|
| Supergene |
8.4 |
g/t Ore |
| Hypogene |
4.0 |
g/t Ore |
| Aerofloat 208 |
|
|
| Supergene |
16.7 |
g/t Ore |
| Hypogene |
8.0 |
g/t Ore |
| MIBC |
10 |
g/t Ore |
| Fuel Oil |
7.0 |
g/t Ore |
| PAX |
40 |
g/t Ore |
| NaSH |
0.053 |
kg/t Ore |
| Flocculant |
25.4 |
g/t Ore |
| Liners |
|
|
| SAG Mill – Liners |
0.040 |
kg/t Ore |
| Ball Mill – Liners |
0.048 |
kg/t Ore |
| Grinding Media |
|
|
| SAG Mill – Balls |
0.400 |
kg/t Ore |
| Ball Mill – Balls |
0.400 |
kg/t Ore |
| Regrind – Balls |
0.0410 |
kg/t Ore |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 172 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 13-29: Heap Leach Operational
Parameters
| Parameter |
Value |
Units |
| Crush size (P100) |
19 |
mm |
| Irrigation rate |
12 |
L/h/m2 |
| Lift height |
8 |
M |
| Leach solution application, primary |
60 |
days |
| Recovery |
|
|
| Gold recovery (initial) |
77 |
percent |
| Gold recovery (final) |
80 |
percent |
| Copper recovery |
18 |
percent |
| Silver recovery |
26 |
percent |
| Reagent Consumptions |
|
|
| NaHS |
0.025 |
kg/t Ore |
| Sulfuric acid |
0.328 |
kg/t Ore |
| Hydrochloric acid |
0.010 |
kg/t Ore |
| Lime (CaO) (93% active) |
3.516 |
kg/t Ore |
| Sodium hydroxide |
0.130 |
kg/t Ore |
| Sodium cyanide (NaCN) |
0.500 |
kg/t Ore |
| Activated Carbon |
0.011 |
kg/t Ore |
| Antiscalant |
0.003 |
kg/t Ore |
| Flocculant |
0.350 |
g/t Ore |
| Wear Consumptions |
|
|
| Primary crusher liners |
0.040 |
kg/t |
| Secondary crusher liners |
0.085 |
kg/t |
| Tertiary crusher liners |
0.085 |
kg/t |
The amount of test work completed for the
heap leach ore is quite small by comparison with a typical feasibility study. Most of the test work has been performed on samples representing
the first years of production. Based on the latest tests completed to evaluate heap leach recovery by crush size a third stage of crushing
with a crushed product size of minus 19 mm (P80 – 16 mm) has been included in this feasibility study. The gold recovery assumed
for this feasibility study is 80% (77% from the leach cycle plus an additional 3% recovered during subsequent leaching/rinsing). However,
additional metallurgical test work is recommended to measure the variability of the ore and its influence on the metallurgical response
of the ore at the crush size selected.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 173 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14 | Mineral
Resource Estimates |
The Mineral Resource for the Casino Project
includes Mineral Resources amenable to milling and flotation concentration methods (mill material) and Mineral Resources amenable to heap
leach recovery methods (leach material). Also, the Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of the Mineral Reserve presented in Section
15. Table 14-1 presents the Mineral Resource for mill material. Mill material includes the supergene oxide (SOX), supergene sulphide (SUS)
and hypogene sulphide (HYP) mineral zones. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources amount to 2.26 billion tonnes at 0.15% total copper,
0.18 g/t gold, 0.016% moly and 1.4 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 7.45 billion pounds of copper, 12.9 million ounces gold,
791.2 million pounds of moly and 103.1 million ounces of silver. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional 1.37 billion tonnes at 0.10%
total copper, 0.14 g/t gold, 0.009% moly and 1.1 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 3.03 billion pounds of copper, 6.1 million
ounces of gold, 286.0 million pounds moly and 50.5 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource in mill material.
Table 14-2 presents the Mineral Resource
for leach material. Leach material is oxide dominant leach cap (LC) mineralization. The emphasis of leaching is the recovery of gold in
the leach cap. Copper grades in the leach cap are low, but it is expected some metal will be recovered. Measured and Indicated Mineral
Resources amount to 231.7 million tonnes at 0.04% total copper, 0.25 g/t gold and 1.9 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 196.9 million
pounds of copper, 1.88 million ounces gold and 14.1 million ounces of silver. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional 40.9 million
tonnes at 0.05% total copper, 0.20 g/t gold and 1.4 g/t silver and contained metal amounts to 46.9 million pounds of copper, 270,000 ounces
of gold and 1.9 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource in leach material.
Table 14-3 presents the Mineral Resource
for combined mill and leach material for copper, gold, and silver. Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources amount to 2.49 billion tonnes
at 0.14% total copper, 0.18 g/t gold and 1.5 g/t silver. Contained metal amounts to 7.64 billion pounds copper, 14.8 million ounces
gold and 117.2 million ounces of silver for Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. Inferred Mineral Resource is an additional 1.41 billion
tonnes at 0.10% total copper, 0.14 g/t gold and 1.2 g/t silver. Contained metal amounts to 3.08 billion pounds of copper, 6.3 million
ounces of gold and 52.3 million ounces of silver for the Inferred Mineral Resource. The Mineral Resource for molybdenum is as shown with
mill material since it will not be recovered for leach material.
The Mineral Resources are based on a
block model developed by IMC during December 2021. This updated model incorporated the 2020 Western drilling and updated geologic models.
The Measured, Indicated, and Inferred
Mineral Resources reported herein are contained within a floating cone pit shell to demonstrate “reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction” to meet the definition of Mineral Resources in NI 43-101.
Figure 14-1 shows the constraining pit
shell that is based on Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resource.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 174 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 14-1: Mineral Resource for Mill
Material at C$6.11 NSR Cutoff
Resource
Category |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
(C$/t) |
Copper
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Moly
(%) |
Silver
(g/t) |
CuEq
% |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Moly
(Mlbs) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| Measured |
144.9 |
40.09 |
0.30 |
0.38 |
0.024 |
2.1 |
0.64 |
953 |
1.8 |
75.2 |
9.6 |
| Indicated |
2,114.2 |
20.34 |
0.14 |
0.16 |
0.015 |
1.4 |
0.29 |
6,493 |
11.1 |
716.0 |
93.5 |
| M+I |
2,259.0 |
21.60 |
0.15 |
0.18 |
0.016 |
1.4 |
0.31 |
7,446 |
12.9 |
791.2 |
103.1 |
| Inferred |
1,371.5 |
15.41 |
0.10 |
0.14 |
0.009 |
1.1 |
0.21 |
3,029 |
6.1 |
286.0 |
50.5 |
Table 14-2: Mineral Resource for
Leach material at C$6.61 NSR Cutoff
Resource
Category |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
(C$/t) |
Copper
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Silver
(g/t) |
AuEq
(g/t) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| Measured |
43.3 |
23.79 |
0.05 |
0.44 |
2.7 |
0.47 |
51.5 |
0.62 |
3.7 |
| Indicated |
188.4 |
11.47 |
0.04 |
0.21 |
1.7 |
0.23 |
145.4 |
1.27 |
10.4 |
| M+I |
231.7 |
13.77 |
0.04 |
0.25 |
1.9 |
0.27 |
196.9 |
1.88 |
14.1 |
| Inferred |
40.9 |
11.33 |
0.05 |
0.20 |
1.4 |
0.22 |
46.9 |
0.27 |
1.9 |
Table 14-3: Mineral Resource for
Copper, Gold, and Silver (Mill and Leach)
Resource
Category |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
(C$/t) |
Copper
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Silver
(g/t) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| Measured |
188.2 |
36.34 |
0.24 |
0.40 |
2.2 |
1,005.0 |
2.4 |
13.3 |
| Indicated |
2,302.6 |
19.61 |
0.13 |
0.17 |
1.4 |
6,638.1 |
12.4 |
103.9 |
| M+I |
2,490.7 |
20.88 |
0.14 |
0.18 |
1.5 |
7,643.1 |
14.8 |
117.2 |
| Inferred |
1,412.5 |
15.30 |
0.10 |
0.14 |
1.2 |
3,075.5 |
6.3 |
52.3 |
Notes:
| 1. | The Mineral Resources have an effective date of 29 April 2022, and the estimate
was prepared using the definitions in CIM Definition Standards (10 May 2014). |
| 2. | All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate
and therefore numbers may not appear to add precisely. |
| 3. | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability. |
| 4. | Mineral Resources for leach material are based on prices of US$3.50/lb copper,
US$1650/oz gold and US$22/oz silver. |
| 5. | Mineral Resources for mill material are based on prices of US$3.50/lb copper,
US$1650/oz gold, US$22/oz silver, and US$12.00/lb moly. |
| 6. | Mineral Resources are based on NSR Cutoff of C$6.61/t for leach material
and C$6.11/t for mill material. |
| 7. | NSR value for leach material is as follows: |
NSR (C$/t) = $15.21 x copper (%)
+ $50.51 x gold (g/t) + $0.210 x silver (g/t), based on copper recovery of 18%, gold recovery of 80% and silver recovery of 26%.
| 8. | NSR value for hypogene sulphide mill material is: |
NSR (C$/t) = $73.81 x copper (%)
+ $41.16 x gold (g/t) + $213.78 x moly (%) + $0.386 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 92.2% copper, 66% gold, 50% silver and 78.6%
moly.
| 9. | NSR value for supergene (SOX and SUS) mill material is: |
NSR (C$/t) = $80.06 x recoverable
copper (%) + $43.03 x gold (g/t) + $142.11 x moly (%) + $0.464 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 69% gold, 60% silver and 52.3% moly.
Recoverable copper = 0.94 x (total copper – soluble copper).
| 10. | Table 14-6 accompanies this Mineral Resource and shows all relevant parameters. |
| 11. | Mineral Resources are reported in relation to a conceptual constraining pit
shell in order to demonstrate reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction, as required by the definition of Mineral Resource
in NI 43-101; mineralization lying outside of the pit shell is excluded from the Mineral Resource. |
| 12. | AuEq and CuEq values are based on prices of US$3.50/lb copper, US$1650/oz
gold, US$22/oz silver, and US$12.00/lb moly, and account for all metal recoveries and smelting/refining charges. |
| 13. | The Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of the Mineral Reserve. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 175 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.2 | Sensitivity to NSR Cutoff |
Table 14-4 shows resources at varying
NSR Cut-offs for mill material. All tabulations are contained by the constraining pit shell used for the base case Mineral Resource at
C$6.11 per tonne (highlighted). Increasing the NSR Cutoff by 30% to C$8/t has only a modest effect on the size of the Mineral Resource
amenable to milling, decreasing Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource tonnes by 5% and the contained copper and gold by 1.2% and 2.3%
respectively.
Table 14-5 shows resources at varying
NSR Cut-offs for leach material. Again, all tabulations are contained by the constraining pit shell used for the base case Mineral Resource.
The base case resource at an NSR Cutoff of C$6.61 per tonne is highlighted. Increasing the NSR Cutoff of leach material to C$8/t reduces
the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource tonnes by 14% and increases the gold grade by 8% so contained gold is reduced by only 7%.
Table 14-4: Mineral Resource –
Mill Material by Various NSR Cut-offs (C$)
NSR Cog
($/t) |
Resource
Category |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
($/t) |
Copper
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Moly
(%) |
Silver
(g/t) |
CuEq
(%) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Moly
(Mlbs) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| 6.11 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
144.9
2,114.2
2,259.0
1,371.5 |
40.09
20.34
21.60
15.41 |
0.30
0.14
0.15
0.10 |
0.38
0.16
0.18
0.14 |
0.024
0.015
0.016
0.009 |
2.1
1.4
1.4
1.1 |
0.64
0.29
0.31
0.21 |
953
6,493
7,446
3,029 |
1.8
11.1
12.9
6.1 |
75.2
716.0
791.2
286.0 |
9.6
93.5
103.1
50.5 |
| 8 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
144.1
2,003.9
2,147.9
1,202.8 |
40.27
21.06
22.35
16.58 |
0.30
0.15
0.16
0.11 |
0.39
0.17
0.18
0.15 |
0.024
0.016
0.017
0.011 |
2.1
1.4
1.5
1.2 |
0.65
0.30
0.32
0.23 |
953
6,406
7,359
2,864 |
1.8
10.8
12.6
5.6 |
75.3
711.3
786.5
278.4 |
9.5
90.8
100.4
46.4 |
| 12 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
141.5
1,686.3
1,827.8
807.5 |
40.81
23.14
24.51
19.86 |
0.30
0.16
0.17
0.13 |
0.39
0.18
0.20
0.16 |
0.024
0.018
0.019
0.014 |
2.1
1.5
1.6
1.3 |
0.66
0.33
0.35
0.27 |
949
5,985
6,934
2,350 |
1.8
9.8
11.5
4.2 |
74.9
680.3
755.2
243.9 |
9.5
81.9
91.3
34.8 |
| 16 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
136.4
1,316.6
1,453.0
434.1 |
41.80
25.70
27.21
25.04 |
0.31
0.18
0.19
0.17 |
0.40
0.20
0.22
0.20 |
0.025
0.021
0.021
0.018 |
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.5 |
0.67
0.36
0.39
0.34 |
933
5,196
6,128
1,637 |
1.8
8.3
10.1
2.8 |
74.6
597.9
672.5
167.5 |
9.3
69.4
78.7
21.1 |
| 24 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
120.8
628.6
749.4
169.9 |
44.59
32.25
34.24
34.41 |
0.33
0.22
0.24
0.24 |
0.43
0.25
0.28
0.26 |
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.025 |
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.9 |
0.72
0.45
0.49
0.47 |
873
3,104
3,977
902 |
1.7
5.0
6.6
1.4 |
71.9
365.8
437.7
92.1 |
8.7
38.4
47.1
10.2 |
| 30 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
102.3
328.2
430.5
108.7 |
47.73
37.29
39.77
38.69 |
0.35
0.26
0.28
0.27 |
0.46
0.29
0.33
0.29 |
0.029
0.030
0.029
0.027 |
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1 |
0.77
0.52
0.58
0.53 |
790
1,888
2,678
652 |
1.5
3.0
4.5
1.0 |
65.4
213.4
278.9
65.0 |
7.7
22.8
30.5
7.2 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 176 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 14-5: Mineral Resource –
Leach Material by Various NSR Cut-offs (C$)
NSR Cog
($/t) |
Resource
Category |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
($/t) |
Copper
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Silver
(g/t) |
AuEq
(g/t) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| 6.61 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
43.3
188.4
231.7
40.9 |
23.79
11.47
13.77
11.33 |
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05 |
0.44
0.21
0.25
0.20 |
2.7
1.7
1.9
1.4 |
0.47
0.23
0.27
0.22 |
51.5
145.4
196.9
46.9 |
0.62
1.27
1.88
0.27 |
3.7
10.4
14.1
1.9 |
| 8 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
41.9
157.1
199.0
29.1 |
24.33
12.29
14.83
12.96 |
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.06 |
0.45
0.23
0.27
0.23 |
2.7
1.8
2.0
1.4 |
0.48
0.24
0.29
0.26 |
50.8
121.2
172.0
36.6 |
0.61
1.14
1.75
0.22 |
3.7
9.1
12.8
1.3 |
| 10 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
40.0
104.4
144.4
15.1 |
25.04
13.96
17.03
16.58 |
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.07 |
0.47
0.26
0.32
0.30 |
2.8
2.0
2.2
1.5 |
0.50
0.28
0.34
0.33 |
49.4
78.2
127.7
24.7 |
0.60
0.87
1.47
0.15 |
3.6
6.7
10.3
0.7 |
| 12 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
37.6
66.6
104.1
10.6 |
25.95
15.69
19.39
19.04 |
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.08 |
0.49
0.29
0.36
0.35 |
2.9
2.1
2.4
1.6 |
0.51
0.31
0.38
0.38 |
47.2
47.0
94.2
17.6 |
0.59
0.62
1.21
0.12 |
3.5
4.7
8.2
0.5 |
| 14 |
Measured
Indicated
M+I
Inferred |
34.7
42.8
77.5
7.4 |
27.03
17.21
21.61
21.54 |
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.08 |
0.51
0.32
0.40
0.40 |
3.0
2.4
2.6
1.8 |
0.54
0.34
0.43
0.42 |
43.6
31.1
74.7
12.8 |
0.56
0.44
1.01
0.09 |
3.3
3.2
6.5
0.4 |
| 14.3 | Mineral Resource Parameters |
Table 14-6 shows the economic and recovery
parameters for the Mineral Resource estimate. Metal prices for the Mineral Resource estimate are US$3.50 per pound copper, US$1,650 per
ounce gold, US$22 per ounce silver and US$12 per pound moly. A conversion of US$0.80 = C$1.00 was used to convert the prices to C$. IMC
believes these prices to be reasonable based on the following: 1) historical 3-year trailing averages, 2) prices used by other companies
for comparable projects, and 3) long range consensus price forecasts prepared by various bank economists.
| 14.3.2 | Cost and Recovery Estimates |
Mining Cost
The base mining cost of C$1.934 per total
tonne was estimated by IMC. The estimate is based on mining equipment requirements specific to Casino and typical prices for fuel, blasting
agents, equipment parts, and labor, etc.
Processing of Mill Material
Mill material refers to the supergene
oxide, supergene sulphide, and hypogene sulphide zones of the mineral deposit. The processing will be in a conventional sulphide flotation
plant that will produce copper and molybdenum concentrates that will be sold to commercial copper smelters and molybdenum roasting plants.
The base unit costs for processing and G&A are estimated at C$5.724 and C$0.385 per tonne, respectively. These are based on estimates
developed by M3. The estimated plant recoveries for gold, moly, and silver in the supergene and hypogene zones are shown on Table 14-6.
Copper recovery is estimated at 92.2% for hypogene sulphide material. The plant recovery for supergene material is estimated as follows:
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 177 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Copper recovery =
94% (Cut% - Cuw%) / Cut%
Where,
Cut% = Total copper grade
Cuw% = Weak acid
soluble copper grade
The copper, gold, and silver payable
percentages shown on Table 14-6 are typical terms for copper concentrates, assuming a clean concentrate with a copper concentrate grade
of 28% copper or greater. The off-site cost per pound of copper is estimated at C$0.486. Gold and silver refining is estimated at C$6.574/oz
and C$1.347/oz, respectively.
Note that the off-site cost for molybdenum
is assumed to be accounted in the 85% payable percentage for molybdenum in concentrate, i.e., this is assumed to be the net payable after
treatment and transportation charges. This is applicable to a clean molybdenum concentrate with a moly grade of about 50% or greater.
The table also shows an NSR royalty of
2.75% and a concentrate loss of 0.5% are incorporated into the economic calculations.
Processing of Leach Material
Leach material refers to the leach capping
of the mineral deposit. Processing is by crushing and heap leaching with cyanide. Gold and silver from the heap leach will report to a
typical doré which will be sent to a refinery. The SART process will be used to extract copper from the cyanide solution and produce
a copper concentrate that can be sold to conventional copper smelters. Heap leach processing is estimated at C$6.227 per tonne. The G&A
cost of C$0.385 per tonne is also applied to leach material.
Heap leach recoveries are estimated at
18% for copper, 80% for gold, and 26% for silver. Typical terms for refining costs are shown and are C$2.122/oz gold and C$1.103/oz silver.
The payable percentage is estimated at 98% for gold and silver.
It is also assumed that the SART process
will produce a copper concentrate with a grade of about 60% copper. Smelting and refining terms are assumed the same as for the flotation
concentrate. This results in a smelting, refining, and freight charge of about C$0.271 per pound.
Due to multiple mineral products and
also the variable recovery for copper in the supergene zones, NSR values, in Canadian Dollars, were calculated for each model block to
use to classify blocks into potential resource and waste. For the leach material:
NSR_au = ($2063 –
$2.122) x 0.80 x 0.98 x 0.9725 x gold (g/t) / 31.103 = C$50.51 x gold (g/t)
NSR_cu = ($4.38 - $0.271)
x 0.18 x 0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x copper (%) x 22.046
= C$15.21 x copper (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50
- $1.103) x 0.26 x 0.98 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103 = C$0.210 x silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_au + NSR_cu
+ NSR_ag
The internal NSR cut-off for leach material
is the processing + G&A cost of C$6.61 per tonne since all the recoveries and refining costs are accounted for in the NSR calculation.
Internal cut-off grade applies to blocks that have to be removed from the pit, so the mining cost is a sunk cost. Internal cut-off is
also generally the minimum cut-off that would be evaluated for mine scheduling. The Mineral Resource tabulation for leach material on
Table 14-2 is based on the internal cut-off. The breakeven NSR cut-off grade for leach material is C$8.55 per tonne (mining plus processing
and G&A). The 0.9725 parameter in the equations accounts for the royalty.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 178 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
For processing of hypogene sulphide material
the NSR values are calculated as:
NSR_cu = ($4.38 –
$0.486) x 0.922 x 0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x copper (%) x 22.046
= C$73.81 x copper
(%)
NSR_au = ($2063 –
$6.574) x 0.66 x 0.975 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x gold (g/t) / 31.103
= C$41.16 x gold (g/t)
NSR_mo = $15.00 x
0.786 x 0.85 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x moly (%) x 22.046 = C$213.78 x moly (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50 - $1.347)
x 0.50 x 0.95 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103
= C$0.386 x silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_cu + NSR_au
+ NSR_mo + NSR_ag
For processing of supergene material,
the NSR values are calculated as:
NSR_cu = ($4.38 –
$0.486) x 0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x rec_cu (%) x 22.046
= C$80.06 x rec_cu (%)
NSR_au = ($2063 –
$6.574) x 0.69 x 0.975 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x gold (g/t) / 31.103
= C$43.03 x gold (g/t)
NSR_mo = $15.00 x
0.523 x 0.85 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x moly (%) x 22.046 = C$142.11 x moly (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50 - $1.347)
x 0.60 x 0.95 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103
= C$0.464 x silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_cu + NSR_au
+ NSR_mo + NSR_ag
where,
rec_cu = 0.94 x (Cut%
– Cuw%)
The internal NSR cut-off for flotation
is the processing plus G&A cost of C$6.11. Breakeven NSR cut-off is C$8.04. The 0.995 parameter in the equations accounts for concentrate
loss and the 0.9725 parameter accounts for the royalty.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 179 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 14-6: Economic Parameters for
Mineral Resource (C$)
| Parameter |
Units |
Mill Material |
Heap Leach |
| SOX |
SUS |
HYP |
| Commodity Prices and Exchange Rate: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Price Per Pound (US$) |
(US$) |
3.50 |
3.50 |
3.50 |
3.50 |
| Gold Price Per Ounce (US$) |
(US$) |
1650 |
1650 |
1650 |
1650 |
| Silver Price Per Ounce (US$) |
(US$) |
22.00 |
22.00 |
22.00 |
22.00 |
| Molybdenum Price Per Pound (US$) |
(US$) |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
| Exchange Rate (CAD to $US) |
(none) |
0.80 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
| Copper Price Per Pound (C$) |
(C$) |
4.38 |
4.38 |
4.38 |
4.38 |
| Gold Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
2063 |
2063 |
2063 |
2063 |
| Silver Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
27.50 |
27.50 |
27.50 |
27.50 |
| Molybdenum Price Per Pound (C$) |
(C$) |
15.00 |
15.00 |
15.00 |
15.00 |
| Mining Cost Per Total Tonne: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Mining Cost Per Total Tonne |
(C$) |
1.934 |
1.934 |
1.934 |
1.934 |
| Processing and G&A Per Tonne Processed |
|
|
|
|
|
| Processing |
(C$) |
5.724 |
5.724 |
5.724 |
6.227 |
| G&A |
(C$) |
0.385 |
0.385 |
0.385 |
0.385 |
| Total Processing and G&A |
(C$) |
6.109 |
6.109 |
6.109 |
6.612 |
| Average Plant Recoveries: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Recovery (Note 1) |
(%) |
59.5% |
81.7% |
92.2% |
18.0% |
| Gold Recovery |
(%) |
69.0% |
69.0% |
66.0% |
80.0% |
| Silver Recovery |
(%) |
60.0% |
60.0% |
50.0% |
26.0% |
| Moly Recovery |
(%) |
52.3% |
52.3% |
78.6% |
N.A. |
| Refinery Payables: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Payables |
(%) |
96.5% |
96.5% |
96.5% |
96.5% |
| Gold Payables |
(%) |
97.5% |
97.5% |
97.5% |
98.0% |
| Silver Payables |
(%) |
95.0% |
95.0% |
95.0% |
98.0% |
| Molybdenum Payables |
(%) |
85.0% |
85.0% |
85.0% |
N.A |
| Payable Concentrate (0.5% Conc Loss) |
(%) |
99.5% |
99.5% |
99.5% |
Cu Only |
| Offsite Costs: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper SRF Cost Per Pound |
(C$) |
0.486 |
0.486 |
0.486 |
0.271 |
| Gold Refining Per Ounce |
(C$) |
6.574 |
6.574 |
6.574 |
2.122 |
| Silver Refining Per Ounce |
(C$) |
1.347 |
1.347 |
1.347 |
1.103 |
| Molybdenum Freight/Treatment Per Pound |
(C$) |
Note 2 |
Note 2 |
Note 2 |
N.A. |
| NSR Royalty: |
% |
2.75% |
2.75% |
2.75% |
2.75% |
| NSR Factors: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
47.63 |
65.41 |
73.81 |
15.21 |
| Gold Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
43.03 |
43.03 |
41.16 |
50.51 |
| Silver Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
0.464 |
0.464 |
0.386 |
0.210 |
| Moly Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
142.11 |
142.11 |
213.78 |
N.A. |
| Equivalency Factors |
|
CuEq |
CuEq |
CuEq |
AuEq |
| Copper Factor |
(none) |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.301 |
| Gold Factor |
(none) |
0.903 |
0.658 |
0.558 |
1.00 |
| Silver Factor |
(none) |
0.0097 |
0.0071 |
0.0052 |
0.0042 |
| Moly Factor |
(none) |
2.983 |
2.173 |
2.896 |
N.A |
| NSR Cutoff Grades: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Breakeven Cutoff (C$/t) |
(C$/t) |
8.04 |
8.04 |
8.04 |
8.55 |
| Internal Cutoff (C$/t) |
(C$/t) |
6.11 |
6.11 |
6.11 |
6.61 |
| Note 1: Average recovery based on Recovery = 94% x (Cutotal – CuWAS)/(Cutotal) for SOX and SUS |
| Note 2: Moly offsite costs are accounted in payable percentage |
| Note 3: NSR factors are applied to model grades, copper factor for SOX and SUS is based on average recovery. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 180 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The copper and gold equivalent grades
on the Mineral Resource tables account for all metal recoveries and smelting/refining charges. The equivalency factors shown on Table
14-6 are derived from the NSR factors as follows for hypogene sulphide mill material:
CuEq% = copper(%) + (41.16/73.81)
x gold(g/t) + (213.78/73.81) x moly(%) + (0.386/73.81) x silver(g/t)
CuEq% = copper(%)
+ 0.558 x gold(g/t) + 2.896 x moly(%) + 0.0052 x silver (g/t)
The calculations are similar for the
other material types. For the supergene oxide and supergene sulphide the copper NSR factor is based on the average copper recoveries.
Slope angles recommendations were developed
by Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP) and documented in the report “Open Pit Geotechnical Design”, dated October 12, 2012.
Forty-five-degree inter-ramp angles were
recommended for most of the slope sectors. The north sectors of the main pit and west pit were recommended to be designed at 42-degree
inter-ramp angles. For the small amount of overburden on the north wall the recommended angle was 27 degrees. The slope angle recommendations
also specified that there be no more than 200 m of vertical wall at the inter-ramp angle without an extra wide catch bench (16 m instead
of 8 m).
IMC used an overall slope angle of 41
degrees in the floating cone runs to approximate overall slope angles with the KP inter-ramp angles.
| 14.4 | Additional Information |
The Mineral Resources are classified
in accordance with the May 2014 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) “CIM Definition Standards
– For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” adopted by the CIM Council (as amended, the “CIM Definition Standards”)
in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource estimates reflect the reasonable expectation that
all necessary permits and approvals will be obtained and maintained.
There is no guarantee that any of the
Mineral Resources will be converted to Mineral Reserve. The Inferred Mineral Resources included in this Technical Report meet the current
definition of Inferred Mineral Resources. The quantity and grade of Inferred Mineral Resources are uncertain in nature and there has been
insufficient exploration to define these inferred Mineral Resources as an Indicated Mineral Resource. It is, however, expected that the
majority of Inferred Mineral Resource could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resource with continued exploration.
IMC does not believe that there are significant
risks to the Mineral Resource estimates based on environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, or political
factors. The Project is in a jurisdiction friendly to mining. The most significant risks to the Mineral Resource are related to economic
parameters such as prices lower than forecast, recoveries lower than forecast, or costs higher than the current estimates.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 181 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-1: Floating Cone Shell
for Mineral Resource (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 182 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.5 | Description of the Block Model |
A 3D block model was developed by IMC
during December 2021. The block model is based on 20 m by 20 m by 15 m high blocks. The previous resource model of record was developed
by IMC during June 2020. Prior to that, the 2010 model developed by G. Giroux was the model used for work from 2010 up to June 2020.
The drillhole database provided to IMC
included 464 holes that represented 128,129 metres of drilling. Table 14-7 summarizes the drilling by date and company.
Table 14-7: Casino Drilling by Date
and Company
| Years |
Company |
No. of Holes |
Metres |
| 1992-1994 |
Pacific Sentinel Gold Corp. |
236 |
73,085 |
| 2008-2012 |
Western Copper and Gold |
112 |
29,765 |
| 2019 |
Western Copper and Gold |
69 |
13,458 |
| 2020 |
Western Copper and Gold |
47 |
11,821 |
| TOTAL |
|
464 |
128,129 |
Figure 14-2 shows the hole locations and
also the location of cross sections that will be presented for this report. The newest holes, i.e., the 2020 holes, are highlighted
in red on the figure.
The analyses of interest for the study
included total copper, weak acid soluble copper, gold, moly, and silver. Also available in the database is a complete suite of multi-element
analyses. IMC’s scope of work did not include a detailed review of the drilling data; that was performed by other QP’s for
this study.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 183 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-2: Hole Location Map (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 184 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Oxidation Zone Types
The most important geologic control,
particularly for copper mineralization, is the oxidation zones. Table 14-8 shows the zone names, codes used for modeling, and a description.
The overburden is a relatively thin, highly weathered zone, near the top of current topography. There are some mineralized intervals in
the overburden. The leach cap (LC) is a highly oxidized domain where the copper mineralization has largely been dissolved in acids over
time and transported to the underlying supergene zones. The gold, silver, and molybdenum mineralization was not subject to the dissolution,
at least to any significant degree; in particular, there are significant gold values in the LC. The supergene domains have been divided
into oxide dominant supergene oxide (SOX) and sulphide dominant supergene sulphide (SUS). Copper from the LC has been deposited in those
zones, elevating the copper grade compared to the other domains. The hypogene sulphide (HYP) zone underlies the LC, SOX, and SUS zones.
Mineralization is sulphidic in nature; percent of oxidation is very low, typically less than 10%.
Western personnel provided IMC with solids
to represent the LC, SOX, SUS, and HYP domains. IMC used these solids to assign oxidation zone types to model blocks. Code 6, waste, was
used to denote blocks outside the provided solids. A surface was provided to denote the bottom of overburden. IMC assigned blocks above
the leach cap as overburden.
Table 14-8: Oxidation Zone Types
| Zone |
Code |
Description |
| OVB |
1 |
Overburden |
| LC |
2 |
Leach Cap |
| SOX |
3 |
Supergene Oxide |
| SUS |
4 |
Supergene Sulphide |
| HYP |
5 |
Hypogene Sulphide |
| WST |
6 |
Waste – Peripheral to Above Solids |
IMC also used the solids to back-assign
the oxide domain codes to the assay database. It is noted that the assay database did include an oxide domain assignment from logging,
but IMC used the back-assigned values for modeling so assay intervals would be consistent with the domains they are located.
Figure 14-3 and Figure 14-4 show the
oxide zones on east-west and north-south cross sections, respectively. It can be seen that most of the Mineral Resource is in hypogene
sulphide material.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 185 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2020)
Figure 14-3: Oxidation Domains on
East-West Section 6,958,600N
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 186 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2020)
Figure 14-4: Oxidation Domains on
North-South Section 611,165E
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 187 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Rock Types
Rock type interpretations for four major
rock types plus the overburden have been developed as 3D solids or a surface for the overburden. Table 14-9 shows the rock types. Figure
14-5 shows the rock types on east-west cross section 6,958,600N. It can be seen that the main host rock is the Dawson Range Granodiorite
which has been intruded by the Intrusion Breccia and the Patton Porphyry. The third intrusion, the Post Mineral Explosive Breccia (MX)
to the southwest of the pit, is post mineral in character.
IMC used the solids to assign rock codes
to the model blocks. Rock codes were also assigned to the assay database by back-assignment from the solids. Note that there were rock
type designations in the assay database, but the back-assigned values were used for the resource model so the assay assignments would
be consistent with the block they were located.
Table 14-9: Model Rock Types
| Rock |
Code |
Description |
| OVB |
1 |
Overburden |
| PP |
2 |
Patton Porphyry |
| IX |
3 |
Intrusion Breccia |
| WR |
4 |
Dawson Range Granodiorite |
| MX |
5 |
Post Mineral Explosive Breccia |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 188 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2020)
Figure 14-5: Rock Types on East-West
Section 6,958,600N
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 189 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.5.4 | Cap Grades and Compositing |
IMC reviewed the database to determine
cap grades for the various minerals. The distribution of the length of sample intervals, when copper is assayed, is approximately as follows:
| · | About 24% are less than 3 m in length, |
| · | About 69% are 3 m or 3.05 m (10 US ft), and |
| · | About 7% are longer than 3.05 m. |
IMC considers that a relatively consistent
3 m sample interval was used for the drilling and that cap grades may reasonably be applied to the assays.
IMC examined probability plots and sorted
lists of the higher-grade assay intervals for copper, gold, moly, and silver by oxidation zones to determine cap grades. Table 14-10 shows
the cap grades in the upper portion of the table and number of assays capped in the lower portion of the table. It can be seen that relatively
small numbers of assays were capped for each metal in each population. The cap grades generally correspond to the upper 99.8 to 99.9 percentile
of the populations.
The assay database was composited to
nominal 7.5 m downhole composites, respecting the oxidation zones. It is noted this is one-half of the 15 m bench height used for the
model. The smaller composite length allows capturing some of the narrowing zones and also tends to result in less grade smoothing during
block grade estimation. Composited values included the total copper, weak acid soluble copper, gold, moly, and silver assays, the soluble
copper to total copper ratio, and the rock type and oxidation zone codes.
The interpretation of nominal 7.5 m composites
is described next. As noted, the composites do not cross oxidation zone boundaries. Composites within a zone are divided into equal length
composites as close as possible to the target length. For example, a 28 m zone of supergene sulphide is composited into four 7 m composites.
With this algorithm 93% of the composites are between 7 m and 8 m in length and 97.3% of the composites are between 6.5 m and 8.5
m in length; IMC does not consider the slight difference in the lengths of the composite’s material for grade estimation purposes.
Table 14-10: Cap Grades and Number
of Assays Capped
| Metal |
Units |
OB |
LC |
SOX |
SUS |
HYP |
| Copper |
(%) |
none |
0.70 |
1.60 |
2.00 |
1.70 |
| Gold |
(g/t) |
none |
2.00 |
2.10 |
3.20 |
3.75 |
| Moly |
(%) |
none |
0.20 |
0.17 |
0.70 |
0.26 |
| Silver |
(g/t) |
none |
35.0 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
95.0 |
| Number of Assays Capped |
| Metal |
Units |
OB |
LC |
SOX |
SUS |
HYP |
| Copper |
(none) |
0 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
| Gold |
(none) |
0 |
13 |
8 |
9 |
12 |
| Moly |
(none) |
0 |
9 |
8 |
5 |
10 |
| Silver |
(none) |
2 |
15 |
9 |
7 |
13 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 190 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.5.5 | Descriptive Statistics |
Table 14-11 shows descriptive statistics
for total copper, gold, moly, and silver for the assay intervals. The table shows values by the oxidation zones. The left side of the
table shows uncapped values and the right side shows capped values. For copper it can be seen that values in the overburden and leach
cap are very low, values in the SOX and SUS are somewhat elevated, and values in the hypogene tend to be lower than the supergene. Gold,
moly, and silver do not have the corresponding depletion of values in the leach cap. Mean gold and moly grades are slightly elevated in
the SOX compared to SUS. The table includes only non-zero values for each population, though many have placeholders for below detection
limit values. The descriptive statistics calculations were limited to the data within the coordinate limits 6,957,500N to 6,960,000N and
609,000E to 612,000E, i.e., in the main deposit area. This was to exclude outlying exploration and geotechnical drilling.
Table 14-12 shows descriptive statistics
for the 7.5 m composites. The table includes only non-zero values, but zero value assays are incorporated into the composites.
Figure 14-6 shows a probability plot
of total copper grades for the composites for the various oxidation type domains. Figure 14-7 shows the probably plot for gold.
Table 14-11: Summary Statistics of
Assays
| Metal/Zone |
Not Capped |
Capped |
| |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean (%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Copper: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
41,735 |
0.151 |
0.173 |
5.63 |
0.001 |
41,735 |
0.150 |
0.168 |
2.00 |
0.001 |
| Overburden |
420 |
0.039 |
0.061 |
0.50 |
0.001 |
420 |
0.039 |
0.061 |
0.50 |
0.001 |
| Leach Cap |
7,050 |
0.040 |
0.058 |
1.36 |
0.001 |
7,050 |
0.040 |
0.055 |
0.70 |
0.001 |
| Supergene Oxide |
3,368 |
0.230 |
0.231 |
2.90 |
0.001 |
3,368 |
0.229 |
0.227 |
1.60 |
0.001 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
8,820 |
0.226 |
0.227 |
5.63 |
0.001 |
8,820 |
0.226 |
0.218 |
2.00 |
0.001 |
| Hypogene |
22,077 |
0.146 |
0.138 |
2.99 |
0.001 |
22,077 |
0.146 |
0.134 |
1.70 |
0.001 |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Gold: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
41,709 |
0.231 |
0.674 |
99.96 |
0.003 |
41,709 |
0.225 |
0.244 |
3.75 |
0.003 |
| Overburden |
421 |
0.153 |
0.189 |
1.68 |
0.003 |
421 |
0.153 |
0.189 |
1.68 |
0.003 |
| Leach Cap |
7,046 |
0.293 |
1.220 |
99.96 |
0.003 |
7,046 |
0.277 |
0.265 |
2.00 |
0.003 |
| Supergene Oxide |
3.366 |
0.366 |
0.323 |
2.64 |
0.003 |
3.366 |
0.365 |
0.320 |
2.10 |
0.003 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
8,821 |
0.241 |
0.336 |
18.79 |
0.003 |
8,821 |
0.238 |
0.256 |
3.20 |
0.003 |
| Hypogene |
22,055 |
0.188 |
0.561 |
55.10 |
0.003 |
22,055 |
0.183 |
0.204 |
3.75 |
0.003 |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Moly: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
39,561 |
0.0177 |
0.0287 |
1.240 |
0.001 |
39,561 |
0.0176 |
0.0273 |
0.700 |
0.001 |
| Overburden |
376 |
0.0085 |
0.0127 |
0.098 |
0.001 |
376 |
0.0085 |
0.0127 |
0.098 |
0.001 |
| Leach Cap |
6,750 |
0.0169 |
0.0232 |
0.363 |
0.001 |
6,750 |
0.0167 |
0.0218 |
0.200 |
0.001 |
| Supergene Oxide |
3,290 |
0.0212 |
0.0240 |
0.398 |
0.001 |
3,290 |
0.0211 |
0.0227 |
0.170 |
0.001 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
8,239 |
0.0194 |
0.0437 |
1.240 |
0.001 |
8,239 |
0.0192 |
0.0413 |
0.700 |
0.001 |
| Hypogene |
20,906 |
0.0168 |
0.0232 |
0.681 |
0.001 |
20,906 |
0.0168 |
0.0223 |
0.260 |
0.001 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 191 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Silver: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
40,363 |
1.94 |
49.91 |
9999.9 |
0.10 |
40,363 |
1.66 |
3.01 |
95.0 |
0.10 |
| Overburden |
421 |
1.70 |
6.65 |
131.0 |
0.10 |
421 |
1.42 |
2.01 |
20.0 |
0.10 |
| Leach Cap |
6,890 |
2.11 |
4.97 |
200.0 |
0.10 |
6,890 |
2.01 |
2.49 |
35.0 |
0.10 |
| Supergene Oxide |
3,257 |
1.96 |
2.96 |
70.2 |
0.10 |
3,257 |
1.91 |
2.25 |
25.0 |
0.10 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
8,671 |
1.68 |
2.23 |
76.0 |
0.10 |
8,671 |
1.66 |
1.86 |
25.0 |
0.10 |
| Hypogene |
21,124 |
1.99 |
68.90 |
9999.9 |
0.10 |
21,124 |
1.51 |
3.60 |
95.0 |
0.10 |
Table 14-12:Summary Statistics of
7.5 m Composites
| Metal/Zone |
Not Capped |
Capped |
| |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean (%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Copper: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
15,943 |
0.152 |
0.160 |
4.12 |
0.000 |
15,943 |
0.151 |
0.155 |
2.00 |
0.000 |
| Overburden |
139 |
0.032 |
0.044 |
0.30 |
0.001 |
139 |
0.032 |
0.044 |
0.30 |
0.001 |
| Leach Cap |
2,723 |
0.039 |
0.049 |
0.73 |
0.001 |
2,723 |
0.039 |
0.048 |
0.49 |
0.001 |
| Supergene Oxide |
1,268 |
0.234 |
0.205 |
1.99 |
0.002 |
1,268 |
0.233 |
0.202 |
1.48 |
0.002 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
3,290 |
0.229 |
0.210 |
4.12 |
0.001 |
3,290 |
0.228 |
0.200 |
2.00 |
0.001 |
| Hypogene |
8,523 |
0.147 |
0.126 |
2.17 |
0.000 |
8,523 |
0.147 |
0.123 |
1.54 |
0.000 |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Gold: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
15,943 |
0.231 |
0.372 |
24.93 |
0.000 |
15,943 |
0.226 |
0.210 |
3.13 |
0.000 |
| Overburden |
139 |
0.132 |
0.164 |
1.17 |
0.015 |
139 |
0.132 |
0.164 |
1.17 |
0.015 |
| Leach Cap |
2,723 |
0.287 |
0.529 |
24.93 |
0.003 |
2,723 |
0.277 |
0.235 |
1.80 |
0.003 |
| Supergene Oxide |
1,268 |
0.370 |
0.291 |
1.97 |
0.004 |
1,268 |
0.370 |
0.289 |
1.97 |
0.004 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
3,290 |
0.245 |
0.275 |
9.21 |
0.003 |
3,290 |
0.242 |
0.224 |
2.90 |
0.003 |
| Hypogene |
8,523 |
0.188 |
0.348 |
21.94 |
0.000 |
8,523 |
0.183 |
0.165 |
3.13 |
0.000 |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Moly: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
15,454 |
0.0175 |
0.0254 |
0.679 |
0.0000 |
15,454 |
0.0174 |
0.0245 |
0.619 |
0.0000 |
| Overburden |
144 |
0.0061 |
0.0092 |
0.063 |
0.0000 |
144 |
0.0061 |
0.0092 |
0.063 |
0.0000 |
| Leach Cap |
2,643 |
0.0166 |
0.0210 |
0.320 |
0.0000 |
2,643 |
0.0165 |
0.0200 |
0.200 |
0.0000 |
| Supergene Oxide |
1,252 |
0.0210 |
0.0203 |
0.182 |
0.0000 |
1,252 |
0.0209 |
0.0198 |
0.134 |
0.0000 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
3,169 |
0.0193 |
0.0396 |
0.679 |
0.0000 |
3,169 |
0.0192 |
0.0381 |
0.619 |
0.0000 |
| Hypogene |
8,246 |
0.0168 |
0.0198 |
0.314 |
0.0000 |
8,246 |
0.0167 |
0.0193 |
0.220 |
0.0000 |
| Metal/Zone |
No. of Samples |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev (%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
No. of Sample |
Mean
(%) |
Std Dev
(%) |
Max
(%) |
Min
(%) |
| Silver: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All Samples |
15,690 |
1.79 |
14.52 |
1759.9 |
0.00 |
15,690 |
1.63 |
2.32 |
93.2 |
0.00 |
| Overburden |
139 |
1.75 |
3.77 |
38.1 |
0.10 |
139 |
1.40 |
1.45 |
9.7 |
0.10 |
| Leach Cap |
2,693 |
2.10 |
4.14 |
173.9 |
0.03 |
2,693 |
2.00 |
2.15 |
35.0 |
0.03 |
| Supergene Oxide |
1,243 |
1.96 |
2.41 |
41.0 |
0.00 |
1,243 |
1.90 |
1.89 |
20.0 |
0.00 |
| Supergene Sulphide |
3,269 |
1.66 |
1.53 |
20.0 |
0.08 |
3,269 |
1.65 |
1.43 |
17.8 |
0.08 |
| Hypogene |
8,346 |
1.72 |
19.72 |
1759.9 |
0.01 |
8,346 |
1.47 |
2.67 |
93.2 |
0.01 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 192 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2022)
Figure 14-6: Probability Plot of
Total Copper Composites by Oxidation Type
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 193 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-7: Probability Plot of
Gold Composites by Oxidation Type (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 194 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Copper
IMC conducted variogram analyses of total
copper by oxidation type domains. The analysis was based on the 7.5 m composites. The leach cap, supergene oxide, and supergene sulphide
domains are relatively flat lying, and the distribution of copper mineralization appears to not vary much by direction. Figure 14-8 and
Figure 14-9 show variograms for supergene oxide and supergene sulphide, respectively. These variograms are calculated as the average of
all horizontal directions which is consistent with the relatively flat lying mineralization in these domains. The ranges of the first
variogram structures are 172 m for supergene oxide and 263 m for supergene sulphide. The variograms are of good clarity.
For the hypogene sulphide, IMC ran variograms
in many directions. The various directional variograms tended to be similar, indicating a somewhat isotropic distribution of copper mineralization.
Figure 14-10 shows the variogram for hypogene sulphide copper calculated as the average in all directions. The variogram has good clarity
and the range of the first structure is 293 m. Geologic inference suggests that the range of influence should be slightly longer in the
east-west direction than the north-south direction. This is indicated in the variograms. Figure 14-11 and Figure 14-12 show variograms
for hypogene sulphide in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively.
The variograms were calculated with the
pairwise relative variogram method. The variogram values shown on the graphs would be multiplied by the mean squared to convert them to
% total copper units.
Gold, Moly, and Silver
Variograms were also calculated for gold,
moly, and silver. For these metals there no evidence of significant grade changes across oxidation domain boundaries, so the calculations
combined the data for all zones. As with copper, mineralization tends to be somewhat isotropic. Figure 14-13 shows the variogram for gold.
The variogram has good clarity and the range of influence of the first structure is over 200 m. Though not shown, the molybdenum and silver
variograms are also of good clarity and reasonably long ranges.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 195 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-8: Total Copper Variogram
– Supergene Oxide (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 196 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-9: Total Copper Variogram
– Supergene Sulphide (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 197 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-10: Total Copper Variogram
– Hypogene Sulphide – Global (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 198 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-11: Total Copper Variogram
– Hypogene Sulphide – East-West (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 199 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-12: Total Copper Variogram
– Hypogene Sulphide – North-South (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 200 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-13: Gold Variogram (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 201 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.5.7 | Block Grade Estimation |
Block grades for total copper, weak acid
soluble copper, gold, moly, and silver were estimated with inverse distance with a power weight of 2 (ID2). The ID2 method was chosen
because it generally results in less grade smoothing (smearing) than ordinary kriging (OK). For the 2020 model, estimates were also done
by OK, inverse distance with a power weight of 3 (ID3), and nearest neighbour (NN) for comparison purposes. The ID2 method was chosen
for the base case model. This comparison was not repeated for the current model.
Total and Soluble Copper
The leach cap, supergene oxide, supergene
sulphide, and hypogene sulphide oxidation type boundaries were all considered hard boundaries for the estimation of total copper and weak
acid soluble copper. The waste domain was not estimated; it is well outside the drilling data. Grades were not estimated for overburden
blocks. The rock types (Patton Porphyry, Intrusion Breccia, Dawson Range Granodiorite, and Post Mineral Explosive Breccia) were also all
considered as separate populations with hard boundaries. This is a change from the 2010 and 2020 models where the Post Mineral Explosive
Breccia was treated as a separate population and the other rock types lumped together.
For leach cap, supergene oxide, and supergene
sulphide the search radii for the estimations were 200 m (circular) in the horizontal direction and 30 m in the vertical direction. These
search radii are well within the variogram ranges and are adequate to fill in the block grades. A maximum of 15 composites, a minimum
of one composite, and a maximum of three composites per hole were used.
For hypogene sulphide the search radii
were 220 m in the east-west direction, 180 m in the north-south direction, and 100 m in the vertical direction. A maximum of 24 composites,
a minimum of two composites, and a maximum of six composites per hole were used.
Figure 14-14 and Figure 14-15 show copper
grades on an east-west and north-south cross section, respectively.
Soluble copper block grade estimates
were also conducted for the leach cap, supergene oxide, and supergene sulphide domains. Soluble copper estimates were not done for hypogene
sulphide. Soluble copper assays were generally not done for hypogene material. A check was made for soluble copper assays that exceeded
the total copper assay. There were only 4 intervals where this occurred, so it was not considered material. After estimation there were
784 blocks with the soluble copper estimate higher than total copper; these were capped at the total copper grade.
Gold, Molybdenum, and Silver
For gold, molybdenum, and silver the
oxidation type boundaries were all considered hard boundaries for estimation. This is a change from the 2020 and 2010 models where they
were not considered hard boundaries. Generally, remobilization of these metals between the various zones is minimal. All of the rock
type boundaries were also considered as hard boundaries for the model update. This is also a change from the 2020 and 2010 models where
only the Post Mineral Explosive Breccia was considered a separate domain from the other rock types.
Search radii parameters were the same
as for copper. For leach cap, supergene oxide, and supergene sulphide the search radii were 200 m (circular) in the horizontal direction
and 30 m in the vertical direction. A maximum of 15 composites, a minimum of one composite, and a maximum of three composites per
hole were used. For hypogene sulphide the search radii were 220 m in the east-west direction, 180 m in the north-south direction, and
100 m in the vertical direction and maximum of 24 composites, a minimum of two composite, and a maximum of six composites per hole were
used.
Figure 14-16 and Figure 14-17 show gold
grades on an east-west and north-south section, respectively.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 202 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Arsenic, Antimony, and Bismuth
Block grade estimates were also conducted
for arsenic, antimony, and bismuth. As with the other metals, all the oxide zones and rock type boundaries were considered hard boundaries.
The methodology and search parameters were the same as for the other metals. Minor capping of the assays was conducted. Arsenic was capped
at 3,000 ppm, antimony at 1,000 ppm, and bismuth at 400 ppm.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 203 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2022)
Figure 14-14: Total Copper Grades
on East-West Cross Section 6,958,600N
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 204 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2022)
Figure 14-15: Total Copper Grades
on North-South Cross Section 611,165E
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 205 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2022)
Figure 14-16: Gold Grades on East-West
Cross Section 6,958,600N
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 206 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: IMC, 2022)
Figure 14-17: Gold Grades on North-South
Cross Section 611,165E
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 207 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Over 14,000 specific gravity measurements
on core samples were included with the Casino assay database. IMC excluded six measurements that exceeded 4.0 and seven measurements less
than 1.25, and also samples outside of the coordinate limits 6,957,500N to 6,960,000N and 609,000E to 612,000E and tabulated the remaining
values by oxidation type as shown in Table 14-3.
Table 14-13: Statistics of Specific
Gravity Measurement by Oxidation Zone
| Oxidation Zone |
Zone Code |
No. of Samples |
Mean S.G. |
Std. Dev. S.G. |
| OVB |
1 |
101 |
2.482 |
0.174 |
| LC |
2 |
2,442 |
2.517 |
0.129 |
| SOX |
3 |
999 |
2.578 |
0.153 |
| SUS |
4 |
3,062 |
2.626 |
0.129 |
| HYP |
5 |
7,337 |
2.652 |
0.112 |
| TOTAL |
|
13,941 |
2.616 |
0.133 |
It can be seen the mean values increase
from OVB to LC to SOX to SUS to HYP to WST, i.e., the higher the level of oxidation the lower the specific gravity.
For the 2020 model update, IMC also examined
the specific gravity measurements by rock type, but other than the overburden, the averages by rock type are very similar to each other,
ranging from 2.612 to 2.637; it is more meaningful to group the data by oxidation type.
The average specific gravity values on
the table were also assumed to represent bulk density measurements, in tonnes per cubic metre, without any adjustments, and assigned to
the block model based on oxidation type.
There are sufficient measurements that
IMC also investigated estimating values in a similar manner as the grade estimates. The means shown on the table were used as background
values for blocks without sufficient close data to estimate them. The averages of blocks done by estimation tended to exceed the table
values by a percent or so. Because of this IMC assigned values as the average zone values rather than estimation of the individual blocks.
| 14.5.9 | Resource Classifications |
For the purpose of classifying measured
and indicated versus inferred mineral resources, an additional block estimate was done. This was based on the same search orientations
and search radii as the grade estimates. The estimate was based on a maximum of three composites, a minimum of three, and a maximum of
one composite per hole. This estimate provides the average distance to the nearest three holes to each block and was put into the
block model. Note the grades from this estimate were not used.
Blocks with an average distance to the
nearest three holes less than 100 m were assigned as indicated mineral resource. Blocks with an average distance to three holes greater
than 100 m were assigned to inferred mineral resource. Generally (not specific to Casino) an average distance to the nearest three holes
of 100 m corresponds to an average drill spacing of about 133 m. These estimates are approximate. It is noted that the nominal spacing
for much of the Casino drilling is about 100 m.
Figure 14-18 shows the probability plots
of the average distances to the nearest 3 holes for the supergene sulphide. Figure 14-19 shows the plot for the hypogene sulphide.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 208 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
On Figure 14-2 it can be seen that there
is an area on the eastern side of the deposit where there is a combination of vertical and angle holes that reduce the average sample
spacing in the area to about 70 m or so. A solid was designed in this area to define measured mineral resources. Figure 14-20 and Figure
14-21 show the resource classification on and east-west and north-south cross section, respectively.
The analytical method of distinguishing
between indicated and inferred mineral resources resulted in some small groupings of inferred blocks surrounded by indicated blocks. Some
filtering was done to remove many, but not all, of these blocks. The filters identified inferred blocks that contacted two, three, or
four indicated blocks and set them to indicated blocks. Several passes of filtering were done.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 209 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-18: Probability Plot of
Average Distance to Nearest 3 Holes – Supergene Sulphide (Source: IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 210 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-19: Probability Plot of
Average Distance to Nearest 3 Holes – Hypogene Sulphide (Source: IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 211 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-20: Resource Classification
on East-West Cross Section 6,958,600N (Source: IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 212 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 14-21: Resource Classification
on North-South Cross Section 611,065E (Source: IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 213 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 14.5.10 | Comparison of 2022 and 2020 Mineral Resource |
This section compares the updated 2022
mineral resource with the 2020 mineral resource. Both are based on resource models and calculations developed by IMC. Note the following
differences between the estimates:
| · | There was new drilling data and updated interpretations of the oxidation zones and rock types for the
2022 model. |
| · | The 2022 model used more hard boundaries for oxidation zones and rock types for grade estimation than
the 2020 model. |
| · | Table 14-14 compares commodity prices and NSR cut-offs for the estimates. Commodity prices, but also costs
and NSR cut-offs, are higher for the 2022 estimate. |
| · | In spite of the above differences, the resource cones shells developed for the two estimates are very
similar. The total volume of material incorporated into the two estimates is not materially different. |
Table 14-15 compares mineral resources
amenable to milling. These include the supergene oxide, supergene sulphide and hypogene sulphide materials. For the 2020 mineral resource,
measured and indicated mineral resources amounted to 2.17 billion tonnes at 0.155% total copper, 0.182 g/t gold, 0.017% moly, and 1.43
g/t silver. This amounted to 7.43 billion pounds of contained copper, 12.7 million ounces of contained gold, 811.6 million pounds of contained
molybdenum and 100.2 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resources was an additional 1.43 billion tonnes at 0.103% total
copper, 0.139 g/t gold, 0.010% moly, and 1.16 g/t silver.
For the 2022 mineral resource, measured
and indicated mineral resources amounted to 2.26 billion tonnes at 0.150% total copper, 0.177 g/t gold, 0.0159% moly, and 1.42 g/t silver.
This amounts to 7.45 billion pounds of contained copper, 12.9 million ounces of contained gold, 791.2 million pounds of contained molybdenum
and 103.1 million ounces of contained silver. Inferred mineral resources was an additional 1.37 billion tonnes at 0.100% total copper,
0.137 g/t gold, 0.010% moly, and 1.14 g/t silver.
For measured and indicated mineral resources
the 2022 resource has 3.9% more resources tonnes at a 3.6% lower copper grade, a 2.6% lower gold grade, a 6.2% lower molybdenum grade,
and a 1.0% lower silver grade. The overall result is 0.2% more contained copper, 1.3% more contained gold, 2.5% less contained moly, and
2.9% more contained silver. The reduced metal grades in the 2022 model are a consequence of the additional hard boundaries for the rock
types. In previous models the higher-grade intrusive breccia composites were allowed to mix with Patton Porphyry and Dawson Creek Granodiorite.
For measured mineral resources the 2022 model exhibits a transfer of resource from hypogene sulphide to supergene sulphide compared with
the 2020 model. This is due to the updated geologic interpretation of the zones.
Table 14-16 compares mineral resources
amenable to leaching. This is the leach cap material. For the 2020 mineral resource, measured and indicated mineral resource amounts to
217.4 million tonnes at 0.25 g/t gold, 0.035% total copper, and 1.90 g/t silver. This amounts to 1.76 million ounces of contained gold,
166.5 million pounds of contained copper and 13.3 million ounces of contained silver. Molybdenum will not be recovered in the leaching
process. The 2020 mineral resource estimate was based on an NSR cut-off of C$5.46/t.
For the 2022 mineral resource estimate,
measured and indicated mineral resource amounts to 231.7 million tonnes at 0.25 g/t gold, 0.039% total copper, and 1.89 g/t silver. This
amounts to 1.88 million ounces of contained gold, 196.9 million pounds of contained copper and 14.1 million ounces of contained silver.
This estimate is based on an NSR cut-off of C$6.61/t. The increased tonnage in the measured and indicated, as well as the inferred resource
category, is due to the additional drilling, which expanded the interpretation of the leach cap zone. For measured and indicated resources,
the copper grade is slightly higher for the 2022 estimate and the gold and silver grades are about the same for the two estimates. For
inferred mineral resources the gold grade is higher for the 2022 estimate, but the silver estimate is lower.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 214 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 14-14: Comparison of Economic
Parameters for 2020 versus 2022 Mineral Resource
| Year |
Copper Price US$/lb |
Gold Price US$/oz |
Moly Price US$/lb |
Silver Price US$/oz |
Mill NSR Cutoff C$/t |
Leach NSR Cutoff C$/t |
| 2020 |
2.75 |
1500 |
11.00 |
18.00 |
5.70 |
5.46 |
| 2022 |
3.50 |
1650 |
12.00 |
22.00 |
6.11 |
6.61 |
Table 14-15: Comparison of 2022
and 2020 Mineral Resource – Mill Material
| 2022 Mineral Resource |
Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (koz) |
| Measured Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
34,655 |
0.271 |
0.491 |
0.0251 |
2.24 |
207.0 |
547 |
19.2 |
2,496 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
57,084 |
0.354 |
0.373 |
0.0273 |
2.04 |
445.5 |
685 |
34.4 |
3,744 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
53,114 |
0.257 |
0.327 |
0.0185 |
1.94 |
300.9 |
558 |
21.7 |
3,313 |
| Measured Mineral Resource |
144,853 |
0.299 |
0.384 |
0.0235 |
2.05 |
953.5 |
1,790 |
75.2 |
9,553 |
| Indicated Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
73,692 |
0.194 |
0.155 |
0.0118 |
1.13 |
315.2 |
367 |
19.2 |
2,677 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
347,684 |
0.173 |
0.176 |
0.0135 |
1.41 |
1,326.1 |
1,967 |
103.5 |
15,762 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,692,782 |
0.130 |
0.161 |
0.0159 |
1.38 |
4,851.5 |
8,762 |
593.4 |
75,107 |
| Indicated Mineral Resource |
2,114,158 |
0.139 |
0.163 |
0.0154 |
1.38 |
6,492.7 |
11,097 |
716.0 |
93,545 |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
108,347 |
0.219 |
0.262 |
0.0161 |
1.49 |
522.2 |
914 |
38.3 |
5,173 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
404,768 |
0.199 |
0.204 |
0.0154 |
1.50 |
1,771.6 |
2,652 |
137.8 |
19,506 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,745,896 |
0.134 |
0.166 |
0.0160 |
1.40 |
5,152.4 |
9,321 |
615.0 |
78,419 |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource |
2,259,011 |
0.150 |
0.177 |
0.0159 |
1.42 |
7,446.2 |
12,887 |
791.2 |
103,098 |
| Inferred Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
18,628 |
0.156 |
0.108 |
0.0019 |
0.67 |
64.1 |
65 |
0.8 |
401 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
103,870 |
0.056 |
0.171 |
0.0019 |
1.04 |
128.2 |
571 |
4.4 |
3,473 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,249,046 |
0.103 |
0.135 |
0.0102 |
1.16 |
2,836.3 |
5,421 |
280.9 |
46,584 |
| Inferred Mineral Resource |
1,371,544 |
0.100 |
0.137 |
0.0095 |
1.14 |
3,028.6 |
6,057 |
286.0 |
50,458 |
| 2020 Mineral Resource |
Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (koz) |
| Measured Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
34,494 |
0.248 |
0.490 |
0.0253 |
2.31 |
188.6 |
543 |
19.2 |
2,562 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
52,176 |
0.383 |
0.398 |
0.0284 |
2.12 |
440.6 |
668 |
32.7 |
3,556 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
58,614 |
0.276 |
0.343 |
0.0222 |
1.94 |
356.6 |
646 |
28.7 |
3,656 |
| Measured Mineral Resource |
145,284 |
0.308 |
0.398 |
0.0252 |
2.09 |
958.8 |
1,857 |
80.6 |
9,774 |
| Indicated Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
65,636 |
0.178 |
0.154 |
0.0107 |
1.16 |
257.6 |
325 |
15.5 |
2,448 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
311,700 |
0.186 |
0.178 |
0.0141 |
1.42 |
1,278.1 |
1,784 |
96.9 |
14,231 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,650,677 |
0.135 |
0.165 |
0.0170 |
1.39 |
4,912.8 |
8,757 |
618.6 |
73,769 |
| Indicated Mineral Resource |
2,028,013 |
0.144 |
0.167 |
0.0164 |
1.39 |
6,448.5 |
10,866 |
731.0 |
90,448 |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
100,130 |
0.202 |
0.270 |
0.0157 |
1.56 |
446.2 |
868 |
34.7 |
5,010 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
363,876 |
0.214 |
0.210 |
0.0162 |
1.52 |
1,718.7 |
2,451 |
129.6 |
17,787 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,709,291 |
0.140 |
0.171 |
0.0172 |
1.41 |
5,269.4 |
9,403 |
647.3 |
77,425 |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource |
2,173,297 |
0.155 |
0.182 |
0.0169 |
1.43 |
7,434.3 |
12,723 |
811.6 |
100,222 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 215 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Inferred Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
8,997 |
0.096 |
0.118 |
0.0028 |
1.19 |
19.0 |
34 |
0.6 |
344 |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
52,632 |
0.072 |
0.141 |
0.0021 |
1.25 |
83.5 |
239 |
2.4 |
2,115 |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
1,368,569 |
0.104 |
0.139 |
0.0106 |
1.16 |
3,137.8 |
6,116 |
319.8 |
51,041 |
| Inferred Mineral Resource |
1,430,198 |
0.103 |
0.139 |
0.0102 |
1.16 |
3,240.4 |
6,389 |
322.8 |
53,501 |
| & Difference |
Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Moly (%) |
Silver (koz) |
| Measured Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
0.5% |
9.3% |
0.2% |
-0.8% |
-3.0% |
9.8% |
0.7% |
-0.3% |
-2.6% |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
9.4% |
-7.6% |
-6.3% |
-3.9% |
-3.8% |
1.1% |
2.5% |
5.2% |
5.3% |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
-9.4% |
-6.9% |
-4.7% |
-16.7% |
0.0% |
-15.6% |
-13.6% |
-24.5% |
-9.4% |
| Measured Mineral Resource |
-0.3% |
-3.0% |
-3.3% |
-6.4% |
-2.0% |
-3.3% |
-3.6% |
-6.7% |
-2.3% |
| Indicated Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
12.3% |
9.0% |
0.6% |
10.3% |
-2.6% |
22.4% |
13.0% |
23.8% |
9.4% |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
11.5% |
-7.0% |
-1.1% |
-4.3% |
-0.7% |
3.7% |
10.3% |
6.8% |
10.8% |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
2.6% |
-3.7% |
-2.4% |
-6.5% |
-0.7% |
-1.2% |
0.1% |
-4.1% |
1.8% |
| Indicated Mineral Resource |
4.2% |
-3.4% |
-2.0% |
-6.0% |
-0.8% |
0.7% |
2.1% |
-2.1% |
3.4% |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
8.2% |
8.2% |
-2.7% |
2.1% |
-4.6% |
17.0% |
5.3% |
10.4% |
3.3% |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
11.2% |
-7.3% |
-2.8% |
-4.4% |
-1.4% |
3.1% |
8.2% |
6.4% |
9.7% |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
2.1% |
-4.3% |
-3.0% |
-7.0% |
-0.8% |
-2.2% |
-0.9% |
-5.0% |
1.3% |
| Meas/Ind Mineral Resource |
3.9% |
-3.6% |
-2.6% |
-6.2% |
-1.0% |
0.2% |
1.3% |
-2.5% |
2.9% |
| Inferred Mineral Resource: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide – Mill |
107.0% |
62.5% |
-8.5% |
-32.1% |
-43.7% |
236.5% |
89.5% |
40.5% |
16.6% |
| Supergene Sulphide – Mill |
97.4% |
-22.2% |
21.3% |
-9.5% |
-16.8% |
53.5% |
139.3% |
78.6% |
64.2% |
| Hypogene Sulphide – Mill |
-8.7% |
-1.0% |
-2.9% |
-3.8% |
0.0% |
-9.6% |
-11.4% |
-12.2% |
-8.7% |
| Inferred Mineral Resource |
-4.1% |
-2.5% |
-1.1% |
-7.6% |
-1.7% |
-6.5% |
-5.2% |
-11.4% |
-5.7% |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 216 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 14-16: Comparison of 2022 and
2020 Mineral Resource – Leach Material
| 2022 Mineral Resource |
Tonnes Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Silver (koz) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Measured |
43,297 |
0.054 |
0.443 |
2.68 |
51.5 |
616.7 |
3,731 |
| Indicated |
188,395 |
0.035 |
0.209 |
1.71 |
145.4 |
1,265.9 |
10,358 |
| M+I |
231,692 |
0.039 |
0.253 |
1.89 |
196.9 |
1,882.6 |
14,088 |
| Inferred |
40,927 |
0.052 |
0.203 |
1.43 |
46.9 |
267.1 |
1,882 |
| 2020 Mineral Resource |
Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Silver (koz) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Measured |
37,161 |
0.048 |
0.447 |
2.75 |
39.3 |
534.1 |
3,286 |
| Indicated |
180,241 |
0.032 |
0.212 |
1.73 |
127.2 |
1,228.5 |
10,025 |
| M+I |
217,402 |
0.035 |
0.252 |
1.90 |
166.5 |
1,762.6 |
13,311 |
| Inferred |
31,137 |
0.025 |
0.167 |
1.70 |
17.2 |
167.2 |
1,702 |
| % Difference |
Kt |
Copper (%) |
Gold (g/t) |
Silver (g/t) |
Copper (mlbs) |
Gold (koz) |
Silver (koz) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Measured |
16.5% |
12.5% |
-0.9% |
-2.5% |
31.1% |
15.5% |
13.5% |
| Indicated |
4.5% |
9.4% |
-1.4% |
-1.2% |
14.3% |
3.0% |
3.3% |
| M+I |
6.6% |
11.0% |
0.2% |
-0.7% |
18.3% |
6.8% |
5.8% |
| Inferred |
31.4% |
108.0% |
21.6% |
-15.9% |
173.4% |
59.8% |
10.6% |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 217 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 15 | Mineral
Reserve Estimates |
Table 15-1 presents the Mineral Reserve
estimate for the Casino Project. It can be seen that there are Mineral Reserves amenable to milling and Mineral Reserves amenable to heap
leaching. The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves amenable to milling amount to 1.22 billion tonnes at 0.19% total copper, 0.22 g/t gold,
0.021% moly and 1.7 g/t silver. The Proven and Probable Mineral Reserve amenable to heap leaching amounts to 209.6 million tonnes
at 0.26 g/t gold, 0.036% copper and 1.9 g/t silver. The effective date of this Mineral Reserve estimate is June 13, 2022. The
low-grade stockpile portion of the Mineral Reserve is economic, but lower grade, material that will be stockpiled and processed at the
end of open-pit operations.
The Mineral Reserve estimate is based
on an open-pit mine plan and mine production schedule developed by IMC. The Mineral Reserve estimate is based on commodity prices of US$
3.25 per pound copper, US$1550 per ounce gold, US$ 12.00 per pound molybdenum and US$22.00 per ounce silver. Measured Mineral Resource
in the mine production schedule was converted to Proven Mineral Reserve and Indicated Mineral Resource in the schedule was converted to
Probable Mineral Reserve.
The Mineral Reserves are classified in
accordance with the “CIM Definition Standards – For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” adopted by the CIM Council
(as amended, the “CIM Definition Standards”) in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. Mineral Reserve estimates reflect
the reasonable expectation that all necessary permits and approvals will be obtained and maintained. The project is in a jurisdiction
friendly to mining.
IMC does not believe that there are significant
risks to the Mineral Reserve estimate based on metallurgical or infrastructure factors or environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation,
socio-economic, marketing, or political factors. There has been a significant amount of metallurgical testing, however recoveries lower
than forecast would result in loss of revenue for the project. Other risks to the Mineral Reserve estimate are related to economic parameters
such as prices lower than forecast or costs higher than the current estimates. The impact of these is modeled in the sensitivity study
with the economic analysis in Section 22.
All of the mineralization comprised in
the Mineral Reserve estimate with respect to the Casino Project is contained on mineral titles controlled by Western Copper and Gold.
The Mineral Reserves include allowances
for mining dilution and ore loss. IMC believes that reasonable amounts of dilution and loss were incorporated into the block model used
for this Technical Report. Compositing assays into composites and estimating blocks with multiple composites introduces some smoothing
of model grades that are analogous to dilution and ore loss effects.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 218 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 15-1: Mineral Reserve
| Mineral Reserve (Milling): |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
(C$/t) |
Tot Cu
(%) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Moly
(%) |
Silver
(g/t) |
CuEq
(%) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Moly
(Mlbs) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| Proven Mineral Reserve |
140.1 |
38.50 |
0.31 |
0.39 |
0.024 |
2.1 |
0.67 |
944 |
1.8 |
74.9 |
9.4 |
| |
Mill Ore |
124.2 |
41.20 |
0.32 |
0.43 |
0.027 |
2.2 |
0.72 |
885 |
1.7 |
72.6 |
8.8 |
| |
Low Grade Stockpile |
16.0 |
17.54 |
0.17 |
0.15 |
0.007 |
1.1 |
0.29 |
59 |
0.1 |
2.3 |
0.6 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Probable Mineral Reserve |
1,076.9 |
23.68 |
0.17 |
0.19 |
0.021 |
1.6 |
0.36 |
4,135 |
6.7 |
497.1 |
55.5 |
| |
Mill Ore |
825.1 |
26.15 |
0.19 |
0.21 |
0.024 |
1.7 |
0.40 |
3,484 |
5.6 |
430.9 |
45.9 |
| |
Low Grade Stockpile |
251.9 |
15.57 |
0.12 |
0.14 |
0.012 |
1.2 |
0.24 |
651 |
1.1 |
66.2 |
9.6 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Proven/Probable Reserve |
1,217.1 |
25.38 |
0.19 |
0.22 |
0.021 |
1.7 |
0.40 |
5,079 |
8.5 |
571.9 |
64.9 |
| |
Mill Ore |
949.2 |
28.12 |
0.21 |
0.24 |
0.024 |
1.8 |
0.44 |
4,369 |
7.3 |
503.5 |
54.7 |
| |
Low Grade Stockpile |
267.8 |
15.69 |
0.12 |
0.14 |
0.012 |
1.2 |
0.25 |
710 |
1.2 |
68.5 |
10.2 |
| Mineral Reserve (Heap Leach): |
Tonnes
Mt |
NSR
(C$/t) |
Gold
(g/t) |
Tot Cu
(%) |
Moly
(%) |
Silver
(g/t) |
AuEq
(g/t) |
Gold
(Moz) |
Copper
(Mlbs) |
Moly
(Mlbs) |
Silver
(Moz) |
| Proven Mineral Reserve |
42.9 |
22.52 |
0.45 |
0.055 |
n.a. |
2.7 |
0.47 |
0.62 |
51.8 |
n.a. |
3.7 |
| Probable Mineral Reserve |
166.8 |
11.14 |
0.22 |
0.031 |
n.a. |
1.8 |
0.23 |
1.17 |
113.5 |
n.a. |
9.4 |
| Proven/Probable Leach Reserve |
209.6 |
13.47 |
0.26 |
0.036 |
n.a. |
1.9 |
0.28 |
1.78 |
165.3 |
n.a. |
13.1 |
Notes:
| 1. | The Mineral Reserve estimate has an effective date
of 13 April 2022 and was prepared using the CIM Definition Standards (10 May 2014). |
| 2. | Columns may not sum exactly due to rounding. |
| 3. | Mineral Reserves are based on commodity prices of
US$3.25/lb Cu, US$1550/oz Au, US$12.00/lb Mo, and US$22.00/oz Ag. |
| 4. | Mineral Reserves amenable to milling are based on
NSR cut-offs that vary by time period to balance mine and plant production capacities (see Section 16). They range from a low of $6.11/t
to a high of $25.00/t. |
| 5. | NSR value for supergene (SOX and SUS) mill material
is NSR (C$/t) = $73.63 x recoverable copper (%) + $40.41 x gold (g/t) + $142.11 x moly (%) + 0.464 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries
of 69% gold, 52.3% molybdenum and 60% silver. Recoverable copper = 0.94 x (total copper – soluble copper). |
| 6. | NSR value for hypogene (HYP) mill material is NSR
(C$/t) = $67.88 x copper (%) + $38.66 x gold (g/t) + $213.78 x moly (%) + $0.386 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 92.2% copper,
66% gold, 78.6% molybdenum and 50% silver. |
| 7. | Mineral Reserves amenable to heap leaching are based
on an NSR cut-off of $6.61/t. |
| 8. | NSR value for leach material is NSR (C$/t) = $14.05
x copper (%) + $47.44 x gold (g/t) + $0.210 x silver (g/t), based on recoveries of 18% copper, 80% gold and 26% silver. |
| 9. | AuEq and CuEq values are based on prices of US$ 3.25/lb
Cu, US$ 1550/oz Au, US$ 12.00/lb Mo, and US$ 22.00/oz Ag, and account for all metal recoveries and smelting/refining charges. |
| 10. | The NSR calculations also account for smelter/refinery
treatment charges and payables. |
| 11. | Table 15-2 accompanies this Mineral Reserve estimate
and shows all relevant parameters. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 219 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 15-2 shows the economic and recovery
parameters used for mine design and production scheduling. In US dollar (US$) terms, commodity prices are US$3.25 per pound copper, US$1550
per ounce gold, US$22 per ounce silver, and US$12.00 per pound moly. A conversion of US$0.80 = C$1.00 was used to convert the prices to
C$. IMC believes these prices to be reasonable based on 1) historical 3-year trailing averages, 2) prices used by other companies for
comparable projects, and 3) long range consensus price forecasts prepared by various bank economists.
| 15.2.2 | Cost and Recovery Estimates |
The base mining cost of C$1.934 per total
tonne was estimated by IMC. The estimate is based on mining equipment requirements specific to Casino and typical prices for fuel, blasting
agents, equipment parts, and labor, etc.
| 15.2.2.2 | Processing of Mill Material |
Mill material refers to the supergene
oxide, supergene sulphide, and hypogene sulphide zones of the mineral deposit. The processing will be in a conventional sulphide flotation
plant that will produce copper and molybdenum concentrates that will be sold to commercial copper smelters and molybdenum roasting plants.
The base unit costs for processing and G&A are estimated at C$5.724 and C$0.385 per tonne, respectively. These are based on estimates
developed by M3. The estimated plant recoveries for gold, moly, and silver in the supergene and hypogene zones are shown on Table 15-2.
The copper recovery is estimated at 92.2% for hypogene sulphide material. The plant recovery for supergene oxide and supergene sulphide
is estimated as follows:
Copper recovery =
94% (Cut% - Cuw% ) / Cut%
Where,
Cut% = Total copper grade
Cuw% = Weak acid
soluble copper grade
The copper, gold, and silver payable
percentages shown on Table 15-2 are typical terms for copper concentrates, assuming a clean concentrate with a copper concentrate grade
of 28% copper or greater. The off-site cost per pound of copper is estimated at C$0.486, a cost developed by M3. Gold and silver refining
is estimated at C$6.574 and C$1.347 per ounce, respectively.
Note that the off-site cost for molybdenum
is assumed to be accounted in the 85% payable percentage for molybdenum in concentrate, i.e., this is assumed to be the net payable after
treatment and transportation charges. This is applicable to a clean molybdenum concentrate with a moly grade of about 50% or greater.
The table also shows an NSR royalty of
2.75% and a concentrate loss of 0.5% are incorporated into the economic calculations.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 220 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 15-2: Economic Parameters for
Mine Design (C$)
| Parameter |
Units |
Mill Material |
Heap Leach |
| SOX/SUS |
HYP |
| Commodity Prices and Exchange Rate: |
|
|
|
|
| Copper Price Per Pound (US$) |
(US$) |
3.25 |
3.25 |
3.25 |
| Gold Price Per Ounce (US$) |
(US$) |
1550.00 |
1550.00 |
1550.00 |
| Silver Price Per Ounce (US$) |
(US$) |
22.00 |
22.00 |
22.00 |
| Molybdenum Price Per Ounce (US$) |
(US$) |
12.00 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
| Exchange Rate (CAD to $US) |
(none) |
0.80 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
| Cooper Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
4.06 |
4.06 |
4.06 |
| Gold Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
1937.50 |
1937.50 |
1937.50 |
| Silver Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
27.50 |
27.50 |
27.50 |
| Molybdenum Price Per Ounce (C$) |
(C$) |
15.00 |
15.00 |
15.00 |
| Mining Cost Per Total Tonne: |
|
|
|
|
| Mining Cost Per Total Tonne |
(C$) |
1.934 |
1.934 |
1.934 |
| Processing and G&A Per Tonne Processed |
|
|
|
|
| Processing |
(C$) |
5.724 |
5.724 |
6.227 |
| G&A |
(C$) |
0.385 |
0.385 |
0.385 |
| Total Processing and G&A |
(C$) |
6.109 |
6.109 |
6.612 |
| Average Plant Recoveries: |
|
|
|
|
| Copper Recovery |
(%) |
Note 1 |
92.2% |
18.0% |
| Gold Recover |
(%) |
69.0% |
66.0% |
80.0% |
| Silver Recovery |
(%) |
60.0% |
50.0% |
26.0% |
| Moly Recovery |
(%) |
52.3% |
78.6% |
N.A. |
| Refinery Payables: |
|
|
|
|
| Copper Payable |
(%) |
96.5% |
96.5% |
96.5% |
| Gold Payable |
(%) |
97.5% |
97.5% |
98.0% |
| Silver Payable |
(%) |
95.0% |
95.0% |
98.0% |
| Molybdenum Payable |
(%) |
85.0% |
85.0% |
N.A. |
| Payable Concentrate (0.5% Conc Loss) |
(%) |
99.5% |
99.5% |
Cu Only |
| Offsite Costs: |
|
|
|
|
| Copper SRF Cost Per Pound |
(C$) |
0.486 |
0.486 |
0.271 |
| Gold Refining Per Ounce |
(C$) |
6.574 |
6.574 |
2.122 |
| Silver Refining Per Ounce |
(C$) |
1.347 |
1.347 |
1.103 |
| Molybdenum Freight/Treatment Per Pound |
(C$) |
Note 2 |
Note 2 |
N.A. |
| NSR Royalty |
% |
2.75% |
2.75% |
2.75% |
| NSR Factors: |
|
|
|
|
| Copper Factor (Note 4) |
(C$/t) |
73.63 |
67.88 |
14.05 |
| Gold Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
40.41 |
38.66 |
47.44 |
| Silver Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
0.464 |
0.386 |
0.210 |
| Moly Factor (Note 3) |
(C$/t) |
142.11 |
213.78 |
N.A. |
| NSR Cutoff Grades: |
|
|
|
|
| Breakeven Cutoff (C$/t) |
(C$/t) |
8.04 |
8.04 |
8.55 |
| Internal Cutoff (C$/t) |
(C$/t) |
6.11 |
6.11 |
6.61 |
|
Note 1: Recovery = 94% x (Cutotal – CuWAS)/(Cutotal)
Note 2: Moly offsite costs are accounted in payable
percentage
Note 3: NSR factors are applied to model grades
Note 4: For copper, SOX/SUS factor is applied to
recovered copper grade, for HYP and leach the factor is applied to total copper grade. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 221 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 15.2.2.3 | Processing of Leach Material |
Leach material refers to the leach capping
of the mineral deposit. Processing is by crushing and heap-leaching with cyanide. Gold and silver from the heap leach will report to a
typical doré which will be sent to a refinery. The SART process will be used to extract copper from the cyanide solution and produce
a copper concentrate that can be sold to conventional copper smelters. Heap leach processing is estimated at C$6.227 per tonne. The G&A
cost of C$0.385 per tonne is also applied to leach material.
Heap leach recoveries are estimated at
18% for copper, 80% for gold, and 26% for silver. Typical terms for refining costs are shown and are C$2.122/oz gold and C$1.103/oz silver.
The payable percentage is estimated at 98% for gold and silver.
It is also assumed that the SART process
will produce a copper concentrate with a grade of about 60% copper. Smelting and refining terms are assumed the same as for the flotation
concentrate. This results in a smelting, refining, and freight charge of about C$0.271 per pound.
Due to multiple mineral products and
also the variable recovery for copper in the supergene zones, Net Smelter Return (NSR) values, in Canadian Dollars, were calculated for
each model block to use to classify blocks into potential ore and waste. For the leach material:
NSR_au = ($1937.50 – $2.122)
x 0.80 x 0.98 x 0.9725 x gold (g/t) / 31.103 = C$47.44 x gold (g/t)
NSR_cu = ($4.06 - $0.271) x 0.18 x
0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x copper (%) x 22.046
= C$14.05 x
copper (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50 - $1.103) x 0.26
x 0.98 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103 = C$0.210 x silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_au + NSR_cu + NSR_ag
The internal NSR cut-off for leach material
is the processing + G&A cost of C$6.61 per tonne since all the recoveries and refining costs are accounted for in the NSR calculation.
Internal cut-off grade applies to blocks that have to be removed from the pit so the mining cost is a sunk cost. Internal cut-off is also
generally the minimum cut-off that would be evaluated for mine scheduling. The breakeven NSR cut-off grade for leach material is C$8.55
per tonne (mining plus processing and G&A). The 0.9725 parameter in the equations accounts for the royalty.
For processing of hypogene sulphide material,
the NSR values are calculated as:
NSR_cu = ($4.06 –
$0.486) x 0.922 x 0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x copper (%) x 22.046
= C$67.88 x copper
(%)
NSR_au = ($1937.50 – $6.574)
x 0.66 x 0.975 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x gold (g/t) / 31.103
= C$38.66 x
gold (g/t)
NSR_mo = $15.00 x 0.786 x 0.85
x 0.995 x 0.9725 x moly (%) x 22.046 = C$213.78 x moly (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50 - $1.347) x 0.50
x 0.95 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103
= C$0.386 x
silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_cu + NSR_au + NSR_mo
+ NSR_ag
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 222 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
For processing of supergene material,
the NSR values are calculated as:
NSR_cu = ($4.06 –
$0.486) x 0.965 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x rec_cu (%) x 22.046
= C$73.63 x rec_cu (%)
NSR_au = ($1937.50 – $6.574)
x 0.69 x 0.975 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x gold(g/t) / 31.103
= C$40.41 x
gold (g/t)
NSR_mo = $15.00 x 0.523 x 0.85
x 0.995 x 0.9725 x moly (%) x 22.046 = C$142.11 x moly (%)
NSR_ag = ($27.50 - $1.347) x 0.60
x 0.95 x 0.995 x 0.9725 x silver (g/t) / 31.103
= C$0.464 x
silver (g/t)
NSR = NSR_cu + NSR_au + NSR_mo
+ NSR_ag
where,
rec_cu = 0.94 x (Cut%
– Cuw%)
The internal NSR cut-off for flotation
is the processing plus G&A cost of C$6.11. Breakeven NSR cut-off is C$8.04.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 223 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 16.1 | Operating Parameters and Criteria |
This FS is based on a conventional open
pit mine plan. Mine operations will consist of drilling large diameter blast holes (31 cm), blasting with a bulk emulsion, and loading
into large off-road trucks with cable shovels and a hydraulic shovel. Mineral reserves amenable to processing will be delivered to the
primary crushers or various stockpiles. Waste rock will be placed inside the limits of the tailings management facility (TMF). There will
be a fleet of track dozers, rubber-tired dozers, motor graders and water trucks to maintain the working areas of the pit, stockpiles,
and haul roads.
The following general parameters guided
the development of the mining plan:
| · | Mill material is limited to about 1.2 billion tonnes, CMC elected to limit the capacity of the TMF to
be comparable to the concept and overall physical characteristics of the TMF design favored in the Best Available Tailings Technology
Study (BATT study). |
| · | Total mine waste to be co-disposed with tailings is limited to about 600 million tonnes, |
| · | Mill capacity is a nominal 120,000 tonnes per day (t/d), but actual plant throughput for the schedule
is based on hardness of the various material types, and usually exceeds 120,000 t/d. |
The geotechnical parameters relevant
to the mine plan are discussed in Section 16.2 and are adequate for this Technical Report.
Slope angles recommendations were developed
by Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP) and documented in the report “Open Pit Geotechnical Design” (Knight Piésold, 2012).
Table 16-1 shows the recommended angles by design sector and Figure 16-1 shows the design sectors. Note the wall geology descriptions
on Table 16-1 are described in the Figure 16-1 legend.
Forty-five-degree inter-ramp angles were
recommended for most of the slope sectors. The north sectors of the main pit and west pit were recommended to be designed at 42-degree
inter-ramp angles. For the small amount of overburden on the north wall, the recommended angle was 27 degrees. The slope angle recommendations
also specified that there be no more than 200 m of vertical wall at the inter-ramp angle without an extra wide catch bench (16 m instead
of 8 m). Figure 16-2 shows the final pit design for this study.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 224 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 16-1: Recommended Slope Angles
(Knight-Piésold, 2012)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 225 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-1: Open Pit Design Sectors
(Knight-Piésold, 2012)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 226 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-2: Final Pit Design (IMC,
2021)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 227 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The mine production schedule is based
on five mining phases. The designs utilized 40 m wide roads at a maximum grade of 10%. The road width will accommodate trucks up to the
370-tonne class such as the Komatsu 980E. A suite of floating cone runs at various commodity prices were done to evaluate the final pit
design (Phase 5). The final pit design is based on the floating cone shell at a copper price of US$1.75 per pound copper and US$835 per
ounce gold. These are low prices compared to current market prices, CMC elected to limit the capacity of the TMF to be comparable to the
concept and overall physical characteristics of the TMF design favored in the Best Available Tailings Technology Study (BATT study).
Figure 16-3 through Figure 16-7 show
the mining phase designs. The mining phase 1 starter pit (Figure 16-3) is based on the cone shell run at US$1.75 copper and US$ 537 gold.
Mining phase 2 (Figure 16-4) pushes phase 1 out in almost all directions and is based on the cone shell at US$1.375 copper and US$656
gold. Mining phase 3 (Figure 16-5) pushes the pit to the south and southwest to the US$1.50 copper and US$715 gold cone shell.
Mining phase 4 (Figure 16-6) is a small
area in the northwest. The geometry approximates a portion of the US$1.375 copper / US$656 gold cone shell that was excluded from
mining phase 2. Phase 5 (Figure 16-7) is a push to the north and northwest to the final pit limits.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 228 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-3: Mining Phase 1 (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 229 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-4: Mining Phase 2 (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 230 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-5: Mining Phase 3 (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 231 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-6: Mining Phase 4 (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 232 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-7: Mining Phase 5 (IMC,
2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 233 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 16.4 | Mine Production Schedule |
The economic and recovery parameters
used for mine design and scheduling are presented in Table 15-2 and Section 15.2 of this report.
The Bond Work Index and mill throughput
rate have been assigned to model blocks based on rock type, oxidation zone, and alteration based on the recommendations in the FLSmidth
2012 report (FLSmidth, 2012). Generally, argillic altered rocks have the lowest work index, potassic altered rocks the highest work index,
and rock with phyllic alteration tend to be in the middle. The production schedule has been developed based on plant hours, so throughput
varies by year. It was reported to IMC that all necessary efficiency factors were incorporated in throughput rates; therefore, IMC has
based the schedule on 8,760 plant hours per year.
The top section of Table 16-2 shows the
proposed plant production schedule. Total mill ore is 1.22 billion tonnes at 0.189% copper, 0.217 g/t gold, 0.0213% moly, and 1.66 g/t
silver. The average NSR value of this ore is $25.38 per tonne. Year 1 is shown by quarters and the rest of the schedule is full years.
For Years 2 through 26, full production years, ore throughput varies from a low of 45.0 million tonnes in Year 19 to a high of 47.1 million
tonnes in Year 2. The table also shows the average Bond Work Index (14.4) and throughput rate (0.19105 hours per ktonne or 5,234 tonnes
per hour). The hours per ktonne units are unconventional, but a parameter that could be weight averaged by tonnes is required for the
calculations. Copper recovery was also incorporated into the model on a block-by-block basis, based on total and soluble copper grades.
The average recovered copper grade is 0.164%, indicating an average copper recovery of 86.4%.
The table also shows the various components
of the mill ore. Direct feed ore is ore that is scheduled to be processed the same year it is mined. This amounts to 913.9 million tonnes
at 0.206% total copper, 0.230 g/t gold, 0.0240% moly and 1.77 g/t silver. This is about 75% of total ore. The average NSR value of this
ore is $27.77 per tonne. Note that Year 1 ore production is 34.6 million tonnes, about 73% of capacity in terms of plant hours and is
made up of ore mined during preproduction and Year 1.
The SOX ore in mining phase 1 is stockpiled
and processed during Years 4 through 13 at the rate of 3.60 million tonnes per year. This is done to maintain the ratio of weak soluble
copper to total copper at relatively low levels by year. This ore amounts to 35.3 million tonnes at 0.275% total copper, 0.098% weak
soluble copper, 0.500 g/t gold, 0.0254% moly, and 2.31 g/t silver. The NSR value for this ore is $37.14 per tonne.
The operating schedule also results in
a significant amount of low-grade ore that is stockpiled and processed at the end of the mine life during Years 21 through 27. This amounts
to 267.8 million tonnes at 0.120% total copper, 0.136 g/t gold, 0.0116 moly, and 1.19 g/t silver. The low grade represents material
between an NSR cut-off of $12.50 per tonne and the operating cut-off for direct feed ore for the year. Additional low-grade resource
is available if the low grade NSR cut-off is reduced. The $12.50/t cut-off gets to the maximum mill ore of 1.2 billion, the approximate
limit for the current TMF design.
The reclaim schedules for both the SOX
ore and low grade are on a last-in-first-out (LIFO) basis, consistent with stockpiles build up in lifts and reclaimed in reverse order.
Based on the schedule the commercial
life of the project is 27 years after an approximate 3-year preproduction period.
Table 16-3 shows the mine production
schedule. The upper section of the table shows the direct feed ore. 5.71 million tonnes of this is mined during preproduction and
stockpiled to be part of the Year 1 plant feed.
As discussed in Section 15.2, an NSR
value was calculated for each block to classify blocks into ore and waste. For the mine production schedule the NSR cut-off for direct
feed ore varies by year to balance mine and plant capacities. It ranges from a high of $25/t for preproduction and Year 1 Q1 feed and
declines through the mine life down to the internal cut-off of $6.11/t for the last years of the mine life.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 234 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The second section of the table shows
the SOX mill ore from phase 1 that is stockpiled and processed during Year 4 through 13. This is at an NSR cut-off grade of $20 per tonne
to limit the total amount to about 36 million tonnes. Lower grade SOX goes to the low-grade stockpile. The third section of the table
shows low grade ore produced by year. This is material with an NSR cut-off between $12.50 per tonne and the operating cut-off for
the year. As previously discussed, this cut-off grade limited the material to what fits in the embankment.
The bottom of the table also shows the
schedule of mineral reserve mined from the leach cap zone by year. This will be processed by crushing, and heap leaching. Leach ore is
defined as leach cap material with an NSR above $6.61/t with leach economics and total copper less than 0.1%. This amounts to 209.6 million
tonnes at 0.265 g/t gold, 1.95 g/t silver, and 0.036% total copper.
The bottom of the table also summarizes
tonnages. It can be seen that life of mine total material from the pit is 2.04 billion tonnes. Preproduction is 75.0 million tonnes
staged over three years, the same as the 2021 study. This is the approximate amount required to prepare mining phase 1 for commercial
production. Year 1 total material is scheduled at about 95 million tonnes after which the peak material movement of 100 million tonnes
per year is maintained through Year 14. Total waste is 611.3 million tonnes so the waste to ore ratio is about 0.44 if mill ore (including
SOX), low grade, and leach ore are all counted as ore. Note that the 0.42 ratio is calculated based only on material mined during Years
1 through 22; it does not include preproduction or the processing of low-grade during Years 23 through 27.
The upper section of Table 16-4 shows
a proposed stacking schedule for the leach resource. This is based on the ability to crush and stack 9,125 ktonnes per year (30,417 tpd
for 300 days/year). Year -2 leach ore stacked on the pad is 3.90 million tonnes based on ramping up production between July and November
of the year.
The second section of the table shows
mine production of leach resource. The third and fourth sections show up to 9,125 ktonnes of mined ore as direct crusher feed and the
excess going to stockpiles. Both are shown at average grades for the year. There are two stockpiles. Tonnages highlighted in green, about
33.3 million tonnes, are mined during preproduction and placed in a temporary stockpile within the final pit limits. This represents the
highest-grade leach ore. Tonnages highlighted in blue go to the permanent stockpile east of the pit. The bottom of the table shows the
stockpile reclaim on a last-in-first-out basis (LIFO). The temporary stockpile reclaim is completed early in Year 7, a couple of years
before phase 4 stripping commences on that ground. This is a change from the 2021 study where some of this higher-grade material was stacked
late in the mine life because it was buried by lower grade material. The temporary stockpile gets to a maximum capacity of 33.3 million
tonnes and the permanent stockpile gets to a maximum capacity of 79.2 million tonnes.
Only measured and indicated mineral resource
is included in the mine production schedule and converted to mineral reserves. The amount of potential mill resource in the pit that is
inferred mineral resource is 34.1 million tonnes, an inconsequential amount.
The mine production schedule includes
allowances for mining dilution and ore loss. IMC believes that reasonable amounts of dilution and loss were incorporated into the block
model used for this Technical Report. Compositing assays into composites and estimating blocks with multiple composites introduces some
smoothing of model grades that are analogous to dilution and mineralized material loss effects.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 235 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 16-2: Proposed Plant Production
Schedule
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 236 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 16-3: Mine Production Schedule
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 237 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 16-4: Production Schedule for
Leach Material
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 238 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Total waste in the mine plan amounts
to 611.3 million tonnes. The waste material by material type is as follows:
| · | 58.5 million tonnes of overburden. |
| · | 144.6 million tonnes of leach cap material. |
| · | 33.2 million tonnes of supergene oxide material. |
| · | 125.1 million tonnes of supergene sulphide material. |
| · | 249.8 million tonnes of hypogene material. |
The overburden is placed in the overburden
stockpile in Canadian Creek, north of the pit (Figure 16-8). The remaining waste is disposed in the tailing management facility in three
facilities for mine waste: 1) the North Waste area which contains 248.4 million tonnes, 2) the Divider Dam which contains 134.4 million
tonnes, and 3) the West Waste storage area which contains 164.6 million tonnes. About 5 million tonnes of mine waste will be used in the
Starter Dam for the TMF embankment. The material will be placed by trucks and dozers; the rising water and tailings level in the TMF facility
will cover the material before the end of the mine life.
Additional rock storage facilities during
the life of the project include:
| · | The heap leach pad which at the end of the project will contain 209.6 million tonnes of spent, non-reactive
material, assuming all the potential leach material is processed. |
| · | A low-grade stockpile southeast of the pit that has the capacity for 161.8 million tonnes, and a low-grade
stockpile west of the pit that contains 106.1 million tonnes, both which will be processed at the end of the mine life. |
| · | There will also be supergene oxide (SOX) stockpile south of the pit to store mining phase 1 SOX ore. It will be
reclaimed during mining Years 4 through 13. The maximum size of this facility is estimated at 35.3 million tonnes. The SOX stockpile and
the leach pad overlap by a small amount, but the SOX stockpile will be reclaimed before the leach pad gets to its final limits. |
| · | There will be two stockpiles for leach ore. Leach ore mined during preproduction, 33.3 million tonnes,
will be stockpiled in a temporary stockpile west of mining phase 1, but within the final pit limits (Figure 16-9). This material
will be reclaimed and processed early in Year 7 a couple of years before waste stripping commences in that area. A larger facility for
leach ore storage is located east of the pit. This is expected to reach a maximum size of 79.2 million tonnes during Year 11 and will
be reclaimed by the end of Year 21. |
Figure 16-9 also shows a temporary stockpile
for run-of-mine (ROM) mill ore mined during the preproduction period, about 5.7 million tonnes. This material will be reclaimed and processed
early in Year 1. This stockpile is also located within the limits of the final pit.
The stockpiles are all constructed in
lifts from the bottom up. The low-grade stockpile, leach stockpile, and SOX stockpile are designed with 30 m lifts at angle of repose
with a 20 m setback between lifts to make the overall slope angle about 2H:1V. This is assumed to be adequate since these are not permanent
facilities.
Figure 16-8 also shows a quarry near
the Divider Dam that is mined during preproduction and Year 1 to provide material for the Starter Dam. This material is not incorporated
in the Casino mine production schedule; the cost is incorporated into infrastructure capital costs.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 239 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-8: Maximum Extent of Waste
Storage Areas and Stockpiles (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 240 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 16-9: Year-1 Showing Temporary
Leach and ROM Ore Stockpiles (IMC, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 241 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Mine equipment requirements were sized
and estimated on a first principles basis, based on the mine production schedule, the mine work schedule, and estimated equipment shift
productivity rates. The size and type of mining equipment is consistent with the size of the project, i.e., peak material movements of
100 Mt/y. The mine equipment estimate is based on owner operation and assumes a well-managed mining operation with a well-trained labor
pool, and that all the equipment is new at the start of the operation.
Table 16-5 summarizes the major equipment
requirements. The first column shows initial equipment for the first year of mine development (Year -3), the second column shows equipment
required for the beginning of commercial production and the third column shows the peak fleet requirements. This represents the equipment
required to perform the following duties:
| · | Develop access roads from the mine to the crushers, various stockpiles, and the waste storage areas. |
| · | Mine and transport mill and leach ore to the crushers. |
| · | Mine and transport material to various stockpiles as required. |
| · | Reclaim stockpiled material and transport it to the crushers. |
| · | Mine and transport waste to the overburden stockpile and the waste storage areas in the TMF. |
| · | Maintain the haul roads and stockpiles and various truck dumping sites. |
Table 16-5: Mining Equipment Requirements
| Equipment Type |
Capacity/
Power |
Year -3 |
Year 1 |
Peak |
| P&H 320 XPC Drill |
(314 mm) |
0 |
3 |
4 |
| Epiroc SmartROC D65 |
(178 mm) |
1 |
2 |
2 |
| P&H 4100XPC Cable Shovel |
(67.6 cu m) |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| Komatsu PC8000-6 Hyd Shovel |
(42 cu m) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| Komatsu WA1200-6 Wheel Loader |
(20 cu m) |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Komatsu 980E Truck |
(370 mt) |
0 |
17 |
23 |
| Komatsu HD1500 Truck |
(144 mt) |
6 |
4 |
8 |
| Komatsu D475A Track Dozer |
(664 kw) |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| Komatsu D375A Track Dozer |
(455 kw) |
2 |
3 |
3 |
| Komatsu WD900 Wheel Dozer |
(637 kw) |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| Komatsu GD825A Motor Grader |
(209 kw) |
1 |
3 |
3 |
| Water Truck – 30,000 gal |
(113,550 l) |
1 |
3 |
3 |
| Komatsu PC360LC-11 Excavator |
(1.96 cu m) |
1 |
2 |
2 |
| Komatsu WA800-3 Wheel Loader |
(11 cu m) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Komatsu HM 400 Art Truck |
(40 mt) |
2 |
0 |
2 |
| Epiroc SmartROC T45 |
(114 mm) |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| TOTAL |
|
17 |
47 |
63 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 242 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The Casino process plant will consist
of two processing facilities, one for sulphide ore and one for oxide ore.
The sulphide ore processing facility
will produce mineral concentrates of copper and molybdenum using conventional flotation technology. The copper concentrate will be dewatered
and transported as a filtered cake by highway trucks. The molybdenum concentrate will be dewatered and packaged in super sacks for transport.
Gold and silver contained in the sulphide ore will be recovered as a fraction of the copper concentrate.
| 17.2 | Sulphide Ore Process Plant Description |
| 17.2.1 | Process Design Criteria and Major Equipment |
Process design criteria were developed
for the Sulphide facility based on a 120,000 t/d (43,800,000 t/y) plant design. The crushing circuit was designed to operate with an overall
availability of 80%. The remainder of the sulphide facilities were designed to operate with an overall availability of 93%. The equipment
was sized using these criteria. Table 17-1 is a summary of the main components of the sulphide process design criteria used for the study.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 243 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-2 is a summary of the
major process equipment selected for the study.
Table 17-1: Sulphide Process Design
Criteria
| Description |
Unit |
Value |
| General |
|
|
| Type of Deposit |
- |
Supergene Copper Oxide Zone
Supergene Sulphide Zone
Hypogene Zone |
| Plant Feed Grade (LOM) |
|
|
| Copper (Cu) |
% |
0.189 |
| Moly |
% |
0.023 |
| Gold |
g/t |
0.217 |
| Silver (Ag) |
g/t |
1.66 |
| ROM Ore Characteristics |
|
|
| Maximum mine-run ore size |
mm |
900 |
| Ore Bulk Density, mine-run sulphide |
t/m3 |
1.68 |
| Moisture Content |
% |
3 |
| Crushing Work Index, SGS Method (CI) |
- |
11.8 |
| Mill Feed Characteristics |
|
|
| Specific Gravity |
- |
2.7 |
| Moisture Content |
% |
3 |
| Abrasion Index (Average) |
- |
0.265 |
| Bond Rod Mill Work Index |
kWh/t |
9.9 |
| Bond Ball Mill Work Index |
kWh/t |
14.5 |
| Operating Schedule |
|
|
| Shift/Day |
- |
2 |
| Hours/Shift |
H |
12 |
| Hours/Day |
H |
24 |
| Days/Year |
D |
365 |
| Plant Availability/Utilization |
|
|
| Overall Plant Feed |
t/y |
43,800,000 |
| Overall Plant Feed |
t/d |
120,000 |
| Crusher Plant Availability |
% |
80 |
| Grinding and Flotation Plant Availability |
% |
93 |
| Crushing Rate |
t/h |
6,667 |
| Grinding Rate |
t/h |
5,376 |
| Flotation Rate |
t/h |
5,376 |
| Design Factors |
|
|
| Coarse ore storage thru grinding and final plant tailing |
- |
1.15 |
| Bulk rougher flotation thru regrind and cleaner flotation |
- |
1.35 |
| Moly circuit – rougher and 1st cleaner |
|
1.35 |
| Moly circuit –2nd, 3rd, 4th cleaners and conc handling |
- |
1.50 |
| Head Grades (Design) |
|
|
| Copper |
% |
0.29 |
| Molybdenum |
% |
0.024 |
| Gold |
g/t |
0.36 |
| Silver |
g/t |
2.05 |
| Copper Recovery Supergene Sulphide and Mixed Supergene Ores |
| Copper recovery to copper concentrate |
% |
94 |
| Gold recovery to copper concentrate |
% |
69 |
| Silver recovery to copper concentrate |
g/t |
60 |
| Molybdenum recovery to molybdenum concentrate |
g/t |
52 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 244 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Description |
Unit |
Value |
| Copper Concentrate Grade |
|
|
| Copper |
% |
28 |
| Molybdenum |
% |
56 |
| Copper Recovery Hypogene Ores |
|
|
| Copper recovery to copper concentrate |
% |
92 |
| Gold recovery to copper concentrate |
% |
66 |
| Silver recovery to copper concentrate |
g/t |
50 |
| Molybdenum recovery to molybdenum concentrate |
g/t |
79 |
| Copper Concentrate Grade |
|
|
| Copper |
% |
28 |
| Molybdenum |
% |
56 |
| Annual Concentrate Production (LOM) |
|
|
| Copper |
dry kt |
264 |
| Molybdenum |
dry kt |
12 |
| Annual Concentrate Production (Design) |
|
|
| Copper |
dry kt |
390 |
| Molybdenum |
dry kt |
13 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 245 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-2: Major Process Equipment
| Item |
Number |
Description |
Key Criteria (each) |
| Beneficiation |
|
|
|
| Primary Crusher |
1 |
1600 x 3000 TSU Top Service Gyratory Crusher |
1,200 kW |
| SAG Mill |
1 |
12.19 m x 8.84 (40 ft x 29 ft) (11.38 m ID x 7.99 m EGL) |
29,000 kW |
| Pebble Crusher |
2 |
Raptor XL 1300 |
970 kW |
| Ball Mill |
2 |
8.5 m x 13.74 m (28 ft x 45 ft) (inside shell diameter x EGL) |
22,000 kW |
| Cyclone Feed Pump |
2 |
Horizontal Centrifugal, Hard Metal, 34x32-77 |
3000 kW |
| Flotation |
|
|
|
| Copper Rougher |
10 |
FLS nextSTEP, RT, 600 m3 |
375 kW |
| Pyrite Scavenger |
4 |
FLS nextSTEP, RT, 600 m3 |
375 kW |
| Copper 1st Cleaner |
12 |
FLS nextSTEP, RT, 100 m3 |
132 kW |
| Copper 2nd Cleaner |
4 |
FLS nextSTEP, RT, 100 m3 |
132 kW |
| Copper 3rd Cleaner |
2 |
Column Cell, 4.5 m diameter x 12.1 m high |
75 kW |
| Copper-Moly Separation |
7 |
Wemco 1+1, 8.5 m3 |
30 kW |
| Moly 1st Cleaner |
7 |
Wemco 1+1, 2.8 m3 |
15 kW |
| Moly 2nd Cleaner |
1 |
Column Cell, 1.75 m diameter x 8.6 m high |
40 kW |
| Moly 3rd Cleaner |
1 |
Column Cell, 1.5 m diameter x 7.5 m high |
40 kW |
| Moly 4th Cleaner |
1 |
Column Cell, 1.5 m diameter x 7.5 m high |
40 kW |
| Cu. Regrind |
2 |
Vertical Grinding, VTM 2250-WB |
1,679 kW |
| Moly Regrind |
1 |
SMD 18.5 |
19 kW |
| Dewatering and Filtration |
|
|
|
| Cu-Moly Separation Thickener |
1 |
High-rate thickener |
45 m dia |
| Cu Concentrate Thickener |
1 |
High-rate thickener |
45 m dia |
| Mo Concentrate Thickener |
1 |
High-rate thickener |
6 m dia |
| Tailings Thickener |
2 |
High-rate thickener |
80 m dia |
| Tailing Cyclone Overflow Thickener |
1 |
High-rate thickener |
80 m dia |
| Pyrite Thickener |
1 |
High-rate thickener |
60 m dia |
| Copper Concentrate Filter |
3 |
Tower Type - Pressure Filter, FLS Pneumapress M30-12 |
31.1 m2 area |
| Moly Concentrate filter |
1 |
Tower Type - Pressure Filter, FLS Pneumapress M19-2 |
3.3 m2 area |
Figure 17-1 is a simplified schematic
of the overall process for the sulphide ore. This provides the basis for the process description
that follows.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 246 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: M3)
Figure 17-1: Simplified Sulphide
Process Flowsheet
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 247 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The following items summarise the process
operations required to extract copper and molybdenum from the sulphide ore:
| · | Size reduction of the run-of-mine (ROM) material (900 mm max) to minus 200 mm. |
| · | Stockpiling primary crushed ore and then reclaiming with feeders and a belt conveyor. |
| · | Size reduction of the ore in a semi-autogenous (SAG) mill - ball mill grinding circuit with pebble crushing. |
| · | Concentration and separation of the copper and molybdenum sulphide minerals by froth flotation to produce
a bulk (copper/molybdenum) concentrate. |
| · | Separation of the bulk concentrate into separate copper and molybdenum concentrates. |
| · | Final copper concentrate will be thickened, filtered, and loaded in highway haul trucks for shipment. |
| · | Final molybdenum concentrate will be thickened, filtered, dried, and packaged in bags for shipment. |
| · | Concentration of the bulk flotation tailings in a pyrite flotation circuit. Pyrite flotation circuit tailings
will have a low sulphide sulfur concentration. |
| · | Subaqueous deposition of the pyrite flotation concentrate (PAG tailings) in the TMF. |
| · | Flotation tailings will be thickened and transported by a gravity pipeline to a tailings impoundment area.
The tailing will be cycloned with the underflow recovered as sand for tailing dam construction and overflow reporting to the tailing
disposal impoundment site. |
| · | Storing, preparing, and distributing reagents used in the sulphide ore process. |
| · | Water from tailings and concentrate dewatering will be recycled for reuse in the process. Plant water
stream types include process water, fresh water, potable water, and fire water |
| 17.2.2 | Crushing and Coarse Ore Stockpile |
Run-of-Mine (ROM) sulphide ore will be
trucked from the mine to the primary crusher and fed to the crusher via a dump pocket. The primary crusher will be a gyratory crusher,
with an open side setting of 200 mm. The crushed ore will drop into a discharge bin equipped with an apron feeder. The apron feeder will
discharge onto a belt conveyor that will discharge the primary crushed ore to a covered, conical ore stockpile.
Primary crushed ore will be stockpiled
on the ground in a covered, conical ore stockpile. A reclaim tunnel will be installed beneath the stockpile. The stockpile will contain
approximately 75,000 tonnes of “live” ore storage. Ore will be moved from the “dead” storage area to the “live”
storage area by front-end loader or bulldozer.
Ore for the single grinding line will
be withdrawn from the coarse ore reclaim stockpile by variable speed, apron feeders. The feeders will discharge to a conveyor belt which
will provide new feed to the SAG mill in the primary grinding circuit.
| 17.2.3 | Grinding and Classification |
Ore will be ground to rougher flotation
feed size in two stages: first, a SAG mill circuit with a single SAG Mill and, second, a ball mill circuit with two ball mills operating
in parallel. The SAG mill will operate in closed circuit with a trommel, a pebble wash screen, and pebble crushers. The two ball mills
will operate in closed circuit with hydrocyclones.
The SAG mill will be equipped with a
29 MW gearless wrap-around drive. SAG mill product (T80 = 2 to 2.5 mm) will discharge through a trommel screen. Trommel undersize will
flow by gravity to the primary cyclone feed sump where it will combine with the discharge of the ball mills. Trommel oversize will discharge
to a pebble wash screen. Oversize from the pebble wash screen will be transported by belt conveyors to the pebble crushing circuit.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 248 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The pebble crushing circuit will consist
of a surge bin, belt feeders and two shorthead, cone type crushers. The cone crushers will discharge onto the SAG feed conveyor. Pebbles
(P80=12 mm) may bypass the pebble crushing circuit via a diverter gate, ahead of the pebble crusher surge bin, to the SAG feed conveyor.
Secondary grinding will be performed
in two ball mills operated in parallel. Each ball mill will be equipped with a 22 MW gearless wrap-around drive. Each ball mill will
operate in closed circuit with a single cluster of hydrocyclones. Discharge from both ball mills will be combined with the undersize from
the SAG mill trommel and pebble wash screen in the primary cyclone feed sump and will be pumped to the hydrocyclone clusters via variable
speed horizontal centrifugal slurry pumps. Hydrocyclone underflow will return by gravity to the ball mills. Hydrocyclone overflow (final
grinding circuit product), with a target particle size distribution of 80 percent finer than 200 microns, will flow by gravity to the
flotation circuit.
| 17.2.4.1 | Bulk (Copper/Molybdenum) Flotation |
Hydrocyclone overflow will flow by gravity
to the bulk (copper-moly) flotation circuit. The copper-moly flotation circuit will consist of two rows of mechanical rougher flotation
cells, two rows of mechanical first cleaner flotation cells, two concentrate regrind mills operated in closed circuit with hydrocyclones,
one row of mechanical second cleaner flotation cells, and two copper-moly third cleaner column flotation cells.
Rougher flotation concentrate will flow
by gravity to a sump and will be pumped by variable speed, horizontal centrifugal pumps to the first cleaner flotation circuit. Tailing
from the rougher flotation cells will flow by gravity to the pyrite scavenger flotation circuit.
Pyrite concentrate will join the first
cleaner tailing at the pyrite thickener. Tailing from the pyrite flotation circuit (final tailing) will flow by gravity to the tailing
thickeners.
First cleaner flotation concentrate will
flow by gravity to the regrind cyclone feed sump. Tailing from the first cleaner flotation cells will be combined with the concentrate
from the pyrite scavenger flotation section in the pyrite thickener.
Copper-moly concentrate regrinding will
be performed in two vertical grinding mills operated in parallel. The vertical mills will operate in closed circuit with hydrocyclones.
Vertical mill discharge will be combined with copper-moly first cleaner flotation concentrate in the regrind cyclone feed sump and will
be pumped by variable speed, horizontal centrifugal slurry pump to a dedicated hydrocyclone cluster for each regrind mill. Hydrocyclone
underflow will report back to the respective regrind mill. Hydrocyclone overflow (final regrind circuit product), with a target particle
size distribution of 80 percent finer than 25 microns, will flow by gravity to the copper second cleaner flotation circuit.
Second cleaner concentrate will flow
by gravity to the third cleaner feed sump and will be pumped by horizontal centrifugal pumps to the third cleaner columns for upgrading.
Tailing from the second cleaner flotation cells will return to the first cleaner flotation circuit.
Third cleaner concentrate will flow by
gravity to the copper-moly separation thickener. Tailing from the third cleaner flotation columns will return to the second cleaner flotation
circuit.
The quantity and size of the flotation
cells that will be installed in the bulk flotation circuit are shown in Table 17-3.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 249 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-3: Bulk Flotation Cells
| Stage |
Quantity of Cells |
Size of Cells (m3) |
| Copper Rougher |
10 |
600 |
| Pyrite Scavenger |
4 |
600 |
| Copper 1st Cleaner |
12 |
100 |
| Copper 2nd Cleaner |
4 |
100 |
| Copper 3rd Cleaner |
2 |
4.5 m dia. column |
Flotation reagents will be added at
several points in the bulk flotation circuit as required.
| 17.2.4.2 | Molybdenite Flotation |
Concentrate from the final cleaner of
the bulk flotation circuit will report to a copper-moly separation thickener. Thickened copper-moly concentrate will be pumped by variable
speed, horizontal centrifugal slurry pumps to the molybdenite (moly) flotation circuit.
The moly flotation circuit will consist
of two agitated rougher conditioning tanks, one row of separation (rougher) flotation cells, one row of first cleaner flotation cells,
a concentrate regrind circuit, one second cleaner flotation column, one third cleaner flotation column, and one fourth cleaner flotation
column.
Concentrate from the moly rougher cells
will be pumped to the moly first cleaner flotation cells. Tailing from the moly rougher cells, which will be the final copper concentrate
flotation product, will flow by gravity to the copper concentrate thickener.
Concentrate from the moly first cleaner
cells will flow by gravity to the moly concentrate regrind circuit. Tailing from the moly first cleaner flotation cells will flow by gravity
to the copper concentrate thickener.
To reduce consumption of NaHS and nitrogen,
the rougher and first cleaner cells will be covered, and the flotation gas will be recycled.
Moly concentrate regrinding will be performed
in a vertical mill, operated in open circuit. First cleaner moly concentrate will flow by gravity to a regrind sump and be pumped by a
variable speed, horizontal centrifugal slurry pump to the mill. Reground moly first cleaner concentrate will be pumped to the moly second
cleaner flotation column.
Concentrate from the moly second cleaner
column will flow by gravity to the moly third cleaner flotation column. Tailing from the moly second cleaner flotation column will
be pumped to the moly first cleaner flotation circuit.
Concentrate from the moly third cleaner
column will flow by gravity to the moly fourth cleaner flotation column. Tailing from the moly third cleaner flotation column will
be recycled to the moly second cleaner flotation column.
Concentrate from the moly fourth cleaner
column, which will be the final moly concentrate flotation product, will flow by gravity to the moly concentrate dewatering circuit. Tailing
from the moly fourth cleaner column will be recycled to the moly third cleaner flotation column.
The quantity and size of the flotation
cells that will be installed in the moly flotation circuit are shown in Table 17-4.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 250 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-4: Moly Flotation Cells
| Stage |
Quantity of Cells |
Size of Cells (m3) |
| Moly Rougher |
7 |
8.50 |
| Moly 1st Cleaner |
7 |
2.83 |
| Moly 2nd Cleaner |
1 |
2.0 m dia. column |
| Moly 3rd Cleaner |
1 |
1.25 m dia. column |
| Moly 4th Cleaner |
1 |
1.0 m dia. column |
Flotation reagents will be added at
several points in the moly flotation circuit as required.
| 17.2.5 | Concentrate Dewatering and Storage |
| 17.2.5.1 | Copper Concentrate Dewatering |
Moly rougher flotation tailing (copper
concentrate) and moly first cleaner flotation tailing (copper concentrate) will flow by gravity to a copper concentrate thickener. Thickened
copper concentrate will be filtered in three tower type copper concentrate pressure filters. Filter cake will discharge to a conveyor
belt that will discharge to a covered copper concentrate stockpile.
Copper concentrate will be reclaimed
by front-end loader onto highway haulage trucks. The loaded haul trucks will proceed to a wash station and be cleaned before exiting the
concentrate load out area. This procedure will ensure against tracking of concentrate from the facility.
| 17.2.5.2 | Molybdenite Concentrate Dewatering |
Moly concentrate from the final moly
cleaner flotation circuit will flow by gravity to an agitated filter feed tank. Moly concentrate slurry will be filtered in one tower
type moly concentrate pressure filter. Filter cake will discharge to a Holo-Flite type dryer. The dryer will discharge to the moly concentrate
storage bin.
Moly concentrate will be withdrawn from
the dried moly concentrate storage bin by a packaging system and will be bagged in super-sacks for shipment by trucks to market.
| 17.2.6 | Pyrite Concentrate Deposition |
Pyrite scavenger concentrate and tailing
from the copper first cleaner flotation circuit will collect in a pyrite thickener. Thickened pyrite concentrate will flow by gravity
to the TMF for subaqueous deposition.
| 17.2.7 | Tailings Dewatering |
Tailing from each row of the pyrite scavenger
flotation will flow by gravity to two tailing thickeners operated in parallel. Tailing thickener overflow will be pumped by vertical pumps
to the process water pond for reuse in the mill. Overflow solution from the copper and moly concentrate thickeners will also be pumped
to the tailing thickener overflow sump. Thickened tailing will flow by gravity to the tailing cyclone station either to produce sand via
the cyclone plant or for direct deposition into the TMF. The cyclone tailings thickener receives cyclone overflow from the cyclone station.
The thickener underflow flows by gravity to the tailings impoundment (may be pumped in later years). The thickener overflows to a
concrete discharge sump (CTOS). Tailings discharge into the TMF will be via valved off-takes along a pipeline on the embankment crest.
Discharge into the TMF will not be continuous from any one location in the pipeline. It will be rotated between off-takes as appropriate
for tailings distribution within the TMF. This will ensure adequate beach development adjacent to the embankments and maximize the ability
of the reclaim system to recover clean water.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 251 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Hydraulic placement of cyclone sand is
not anticipated to be possible for a portion of the year due to freezing temperatures in the winter. The coarse cyclone underflow will
be processed using dewatering screens during the winter months to produce sand that can be transported by conveyor to the toe of the dam
for future use in construction of the Main Dam. The coarse cyclone underflow will flow by gravity to eight screens for dewatering. Screen
undersize will be pumped using vertical pumps to the sand cyclone overflow thickener. Screen oversize will discharge on to the reversible
dewatering screen collecting conveyor where it will be directed to the coarse sand conveyor and sent to the tailing dam crest, or it will
be directed to the coarse sand stockpile feed conveyor which discharges to the coarse sand stacker ahead of a stockpile. The sand cyclone
overflow flows by gravity to the sand cyclone overflow thickener. Thickener underflow flows by gravity to the TMF. Thickener overflow
flows by gravity to the sand cyclone thickener overflow sump. A portion of the overflow is pumped using vertical pumps to the sand cyclone
feed sump for cyclone feed dilution. The remaining overflow is pumped using vertical pumps to booster station No. 1 as part of the reclaim
water supply back to the concentrator.
| 17.2.8 | Reagents and Consumables |
Reagent storage, mixing, and distribution
will be provided for all reagents used in the sulphide processing circuits. Table 17-5 below is a summary of reagents used in the process
plant.
Table 17-5: Process Consumables
| Reagent & Consumables |
Units |
Consumption Rate |
| Copper Flotation Reagents |
|
|
| Lime (hypogene) |
kg/t |
1.075 |
| Lime (supergene sulphide) |
kg/t |
2.688 |
| Fuel Oil |
kg/t |
0.007 |
| 3418A (hypogene) |
kg/t |
0.004 |
| 3418A (supergene sulphide) |
kg/t |
0.008 |
| A208 (hypogene) |
kg/t |
0.008 |
| A208 (supergene & sulphide) |
kg/t |
0.017 |
| MIBC |
kg/t |
0.010 |
| PAX |
kg/t |
0.040 |
| Flocculant |
kg/t |
0.022 |
| Moly Flotation Reagents |
|
|
| NaHS |
kg/t |
0.053 |
| Fuel Oil |
kg/t |
0.0004 |
| Flocculant |
kg/t |
0.0034 |
| Liners and Grinding Media |
|
|
| Primary Crusher - Liners |
kg/t |
0.040 |
| SAG Mill - Liners |
kg/t |
0.040 |
| Ball Mill - Liners |
kg/t |
0.048 |
| SAG Mill - Balls |
kg/t |
0.400 |
| Ball Mill - Balls |
kg/t |
0.400 |
| Regrind Mill – Balls |
Kg/t |
0.041 |
The water source for Casino is the Yukon
River, 17 km away. Fresh water will be pumped from the fresh-water intake Ranney well through a series of booster stations, pumps, and
pipelines to the plant site area. Fresh water will collect in a freshwater pond at the process site. The design capacity of the freshwater
collection and transfer system will be approximately 3,200 m3/h.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 252 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Fresh water stored in the freshwater
pond will gravity feed a fresh/fire water tank. Fresh water will be pumped from the fresh/fire water tank to a camp and will gravity feed
to distribution points in the plant. Fresh water will be distributed to:
| · | A chlorinator package and subsequent potable water tank, for use in offices, laboratory, dry, and rest
rooms |
| · | A mine water tank for mine road dust control |
| · | A gland seal water tank to supply seal water for mechanical equipment |
| · | The fire water distribution system in the mill site area |
Drain water and seepage, designated as
process water, is collected in the water management pond below the embankment. Water is pumped from the pond to the water management booster
station by low head vertical pumps. High head vertical pumps installed in this transfer sump transfer the water up to the sand cyclone
thickener overflow sump (CTOS). Low head vertical pumps in the CTOS pump water up to the concrete sand cyclone feed tank to dilute the
tailings feeding the cyclone station. High head, vertical pumps in the CTOS pump the balance of the water, net of water required for cyclone
dilution purposes, to Reclaim Booster Station #1. In addition, reclaim water is pumped to the ADR Reclaim/Fire water tank for distribution
and to the barren solution tank as makeup water required for the oxide heap leach.
Vertical pumps installed on the NAG area
barge pump reclaimed water to a concrete relay sump at about elevation 900 m. Vertical pumps installed on the two PAG barges pump reclaim
water to the relay sump as well. Vertical pumps in Relay Station #1 sump transfer reclaimed water to Relay Station #2 where vertical pumps
transfer water to Booster Station #1. Vertical pumps installed in Booster Station #1 transfer reclaimed water to the Process Water Pond.
Process water will be distributed from the process water pond by gravity flow through a pipeline to mill process water usage points.
The Casino sulphide
process facility has an estimated 146.0 megawatt (MW) total connected load and 132.0 MW total demand load. See Section 21 for power costs
used in the operating cost estimate and financial model.
17.4
Air Service
Separate air supply systems will supply
air to the following areas:
| · | Flotation – air will be provided by two compressors coupled with an air receiver. |
| · | Plant Air – high pressure air will be provided by two compressors coupled with an air receiver. |
| · | Instrumentation – high pressure air will be provided from a dedicated compressor, receiver, and
air dryer. |
| 17.5 | Process Control Philosophy – Sulphide Plant |
The sulphide plant control system will
consist of a Siemens Simatic PCS 7 Plant Control System (PCS) with PC-based operator interface stations (OIS) located at the central control
room. The PCS, in conjunction with the OIS, will perform all equipment and process interlocking, control, alarming, trending, event logging,
and report generations. The process control system networks Operation Servers (OS), Process Historian/Information Servers (PH/IS), Web
Server (WS), Operator Server (OS) Clients, Engineering Station (ES), and Web Clients to allow operators in the Control Rooms and in other
designated control stations throughout the site, to monitor and control the industrial process. The plant central control room will be
staffed by trained personnel 24 hours per day.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 253 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The process control will be enhanced
with the installation of an automatic sampling system. The system will collect samples from various streams for on-line analysis and the
daily metallurgical balance. Vendors’ instrumentation packages will be integrated with the central control system. In addition,
density and particle size metres will be installed in the cyclone feed sump to control the grind.
A closed-circuit television (CCTV) system
will monitor various facilities and conveyors discharge points. The cameras will be monitored from the central control room.
Samplers will be installed in locations
that are required for metallurgical accounting and process control purposes. The final concentrate and intermediate streams will
be monitored by an on-line x-ray diffraction analyzer, which may include pH control and reagent addition control systems. The assay data
will be fed back to central control room and used to optimize process conditions. Routine samples of intermediate products and final products
will be collected and analyzed in an assay laboratory where standard assays will be performed. The data obtained will be used for product
quality control and routine process optimization. Feed and tailings samples will also be collected and subjected to routine assay.
The assay laboratory will consist of
a full set of assay instruments for base metal analysis, including an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS), and ICP, experimental
balances, and other determination instruments such as pH and redox potential metres.
| 17.7 | Metallurgical Performance Projection |
According to the metallurgical performance
projections developed from the metallurgical test results and the proposed mine plan, life of mine concentrate production is projected
and shown in Table 17-6.
Table 17-6: Metallurgical Performance
Estimate
| Mill Feed |
Copper Concentrate |
Moly Concentrate |
Tonnage
(kt) |
Cu
% |
Mo
% |
Recovery
Cu % |
Grade
Cu % |
Production
(kt) |
Recovery
Mo % |
Grade Mo
% |
Production
(kt) |
| 1,217,069 |
0.189 |
0.021 |
86.5 |
28% |
7,116 |
71.2 |
56 |
330 |
The oxide ore processing facility will
produce gold and silver Doré bars via heap leach and carbon adsorption technology. Copper contained in the oxide ore will be recovered
as a copper sulphide precipitate using SART technology.
| 17.9 | Oxide Ore Process Plant Description |
| 17.9.1 | Process Design Criteria and Major Equipment |
Process design criteria were developed
for the Project based on a 9,125,000 t/y plant design. Crushing, conveying, and stacking plant is designed to operate 300 days each year
at 30,417 mtpd. Heap leach, ADR, and the SART plant are designed to operate 365 days each year based on leaching 25,000 mtpd or ore on
the leach pad each day. The crushing circuit was designed to operate with an overall availability of 75%. The remainder of the processing
facilities were designed to operate with an overall availability of 98%. The equipment was sized using these criteria. Table 17-7 is a
summary of the main components of the oxide process design criteria used for the study. Table 17-8 is a summary of the major process equipment
selected for the study.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 254 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-7: Oxide Process Design Criteria
| Description |
Unit |
Value |
| General |
|
|
| Type of Deposit |
- |
Oxide Cap Material |
| Plant Feed Grade (LOM) |
|
|
| Gold (Au) |
g/t |
0.44 |
| Silver (Ag) |
g/t |
3.0 |
| Copper (Cu) |
% |
0.05 |
| ROM Ore Characteristics |
|
|
| Maximum mine-run ore size |
mm |
900 |
| Specific Gravity |
- |
2.65 |
| Moisture Content |
% |
2 |
| Ore Stacked Density |
t/m3 |
1.75 |
| Crushing |
|
|
| Primary Crushed Ore Product Size, P100 |
mm |
200 |
| Final Crushed Ore Product Size, P100 |
mm |
50 |
| Primary Crushed Ore Product Size, P100 |
mm |
25 |
| Operating Schedule |
|
|
| Shift/Day |
- |
2 |
| Hours/Shift |
h |
12 |
| Hours/Day |
h |
24 |
| Days/Year- Crushing, Conveying, Stacking |
d |
300 |
| Days/Year – Heap Leach/ADR/Refinery/SART |
d |
365 |
| Plant Availability/Utilization |
|
|
| Overall Plant Feed |
t/y |
9,125,000 |
| Overall Crushing, Conveying, Stacking Plant Feed |
t/d |
30,417 |
| Crushing Plant Availability |
% |
75 |
| ADR/Refinery/SART Plant Availability |
% |
98 |
| Crushing/Stacking Rate |
t/h |
1,690 |
| Design Factors |
|
|
| Continuous flows thru CIC and SART circuits |
- |
1.15 |
| Batch sizing in the ADR plant |
- |
1.15 |
| Heap Leach |
|
|
| Pile |
|
|
| Pad ore storage capacity |
Tonne |
210,000,000 |
| Pile slope |
- |
2.5:1 |
| Lift height |
m |
8.0 |
| Ore pile setback |
m |
9 |
| Precipitation |
mm/a |
500 |
| Pan Evaporation |
mm/a |
308 |
| Leach Solution |
|
|
| Leach solution application method |
- |
Distribution network with emitters |
| Leach solution application, primary |
d |
60 |
| Leach solution application, secondary |
d |
Through subsequent lifts |
| Application rate |
L/h/m2 |
12 |
| Retained solution, leach pile moisture (wet) |
% |
8 to 10 |
| Operating solution, leach pile, moisture (wet) |
% |
10 to 12 |
| Barren solution flow rate (average) |
m3/h |
1,312 |
| Pregnant solution flow rate (average) |
m3/h |
1,223 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 255 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 17-8: Major Process Equipment
| Item |
Number |
Description |
Key Criteria (ea.) |
| Primary Crusher |
1 |
1100 x 1800 TSU Top Service Gyratory Crusher |
450 kW |
| Secondary Screen |
1 |
3 m x 6.7 m Inclined; double deck; banana |
19 kW |
| Secondary Crusher |
1 |
Raptor XL 1300 |
970 kW |
| Tertiary Screen |
1 |
3 m x 6.7 m Inclined; double deck; banana |
19 kW |
| Tertiary Crusher |
1 |
Raptor XL 1300 |
970 kW |
| Heap Leach Stacking System |
1 |
Conveyors, Stacker |
2,200 kW |
| Barren Solution Pump |
2 |
Vertical Turbine; 703 m³/hr @ 156 m TDH |
448 kW |
| Pregnant Solution Pump |
3 |
Submersible Vertical Pump; 754 m³/hr, 125 m head |
336 kW |
| Carbon Handling Plant |
1 lot |
ADR and Refinery |
3 ton |
| SART plant |
1 lot |
Design basis: 400 mg/L Cu in the PLS |
150 m3/hr |
Figure 17-2 is a simplified schematic of
the overall process for the oxide ore. This provides the basis for the process description that follows.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 256 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
(Source: M3)
Figure 17-2: Simplified Oxide Process
Flowsheet
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 257 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The following items summarise the process
operations required to extract gold from the oxide gold ore.
- Size reduction of the run-of-mine (ROM) ore to minus
200 mm using a primary gyratory crusher.
- Size reduction of the primary crushed ore to minus
50 mm through screening and a secondary cone crusher.
- Size reduction of the secondary crushed ore to minus
25 mm through screening and a tertiary cone crusher.
- Stacking crushed ore by overland conveyors and a
stacker onto a heap leach pad, and subsequently, leaching the ore with cyanide solution.
- Recovering gold and silver from the pregnant leach
solution on activated carbon in carbon-in-column tanks (CIC).
- Recovering copper from the pregnant leach solution
by the Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling and Thickening (SART) process.
- Treating gold and silver loaded carbon recovered
from the CIC circuit by acid washing, cold stripping with cyanide solution to remove copper, hot stripping with caustic solution to remove
gold, and thermal reactivation of the carbon.
- Recovering gold from the pregnant carbon stripping
solution as cathode sludge on stainless steel mesh cathodes in an electrowinning cell.
- Melting the cathode sludge with fluxes to produce
a gold/silver Doré bar, the final product of the ore processing facility.
- Storing, preparing, and distributing reagents to be used
in the process.
| 17.9.2 | Crushing, Conveying, and Stacking |
The Oxide ore will have a primary crusher
and conveyor system separate from the Sulphide ore.
Run of mine (ROM) oxide ore will be trucked
from the mine to the primary crusher apron feeder. Alternatively, ROM may be stockpiled in the ROM Stockpile if the primary crusher is
down for maintenance. A front-end loader will reclaim ore from the stockpile and dump onto the primary crusher apron feeder. The apron
feeder will provide the feed to the primary crusher. The primary crusher will be a gyratory crusher. The primary crusher will discharge
onto a secondary screen feed belt conveyor.
Secondary screen feed conveyor will discharge
onto the secondary screen. Screen undersize will discharge onto the fine ore transfer conveyor. Screen oversize will discharge onto secondary
screen discharge belt conveyor, which discharges into secondary crusher feed bin.
Secondary crusher belt feeder will draw
ore from the bin and provide feed to the secondary cone crusher. Cone crusher discharge will combine with undersize from the secondary
screen on the tertiary screen feed belt conveyor.
Tertiary screen feed conveyor will discharge
onto the tertiary screen. Screen undersize will discharge onto the fine ore transfer conveyor. Screen oversize will discharge onto the
tertiary screen discharge belt conveyor, which discharges into tertiary crusher feed bin.
Tertiary crusher belt feeder will draw
ore from the bin and provide feed to the tertiary cone crusher. Cone crusher discharge will combine with undersize from both the secondary
and tertiary screens on the fine ore transfer conveyor. Lime will be added to this conveyor, which discharges onto the intermediate transfer
conveyor.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 258 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The intermediate transfer conveyor discharges
onto a series of overland transfer conveyors, with the last overland conveyor discharging onto the telescoping stacker feed conveyor.
The telescoping stacker feed conveyor discharges onto the leach pile stacking conveyor, which places crushed ore onto the heap leach pile.
A hydraulically operated, pedestal-mounted,
rock breaker will be installed over the primary crusher rock box. A belt magnet will be installed over the secondary screen feed conveyor
to remove any tramp metal in the system. A metal detector will be installed above the secondary crusher belt feeder to alert the operator
of metal still in the system and to protect the secondary cone crusher.
A belt scale will be installed on the
secondary screen feed conveyor, the coarse ore conveyor and on the fine ore transfer conveyor to monitor primary crusher discharge. Dust
control in the crushing area will be a dry type of dust collector system.
The heap leach pad will consist of liners
and a low-permeability soil liner. A perforated pipe drainage system will enhance drainage of leach solutions away from the liner, reduce
hydrostatic head, and facilitate pregnant solution recovery. A layer of crushed and screened rock will be placed on the liner. See section
18.8.3 for the liner system details.
Barren process solution will be applied
to ore lots. Solution will be applied with drip emitters to minimize evaporation losses. When an ore lot has completed the primary leach
cycle, solution application will be stopped, and another ore lift (or layer) will be placed on top of the previous lift. Leach solution
application will resume. The process of layering and leaching the ore will repeat for a maximum of eight ore lifts or layers on the leach
pad. When the last process leach cycle is completed on the last lift, the ore heaps will be rinsed with fresh water to recover the remaining
gold and rinse the residue.
Pregnant solution discharging from the
ore heaps will be collected in a network of pipe placed throughout the overliner material that will direct the solution to the in-heap
collection area.
Pregnant solution will be pumped from
the in-heap collection area using horizontal, centrifugal pregnant solution pumps. The pump discharge pipes will be combined in a single
pipeline to the carbon-in-column (CIC) / SART circuit for recovery of gold and copper.
An events pond will be installed to handle
any overflow that might occur during a large precipitation event. Water that accumulates in the events pond will be periodically pumped
by a submersible pump to the barren solution system feeding leach solution to the ore heaps.
The pond system has been sized to contain
normal operating solutions and stormwater. Ponds will be fenced to reduce the risk of danger to wildlife.
The design of the heap leach facility
is such that the facility will be operated as a zero-discharge facility. A cyanide detox system will be installed as a contingency measure.
If a surplus of solution exists, the excess solution will be routed to cyanide destruction prior to transfer to the tailing management
facility, which is part of the sulphide concentrator.
| 17.9.4 | Carbon ADR Plant/SART |
Gold and silver will be recovered from
heap leach pregnant solution by adsorption of their ions on activated carbon followed by desorption and electrowinning of a gold and silver
solid product. Copper will be recovered from the pregnant solution by the SART process where the copper will be precipitated by the addition
of sulphide to produce a copper sulphide product.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 259 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The process steps required to recover
gold and silver by the carbon adsorption method include:
| · | loading gold and silver on activated carbon in a CIC circuit, |
| · | acid washing of the carbon to remove water scale and acid soluble copper, |
| · | cold stripping of carbon (elution) to remove copper, |
| · | stripping gold and silver from the carbon using a hot caustic solution, |
| · | electrowinning gold and silver from the stripping solution in a precious metal sludge using an electrolytic
cell, |
| · | reactivating stripped carbon by thermal regeneration, and |
| · | melting the precious metal sludge in a crucible furnace to produce Doré bars. |
The process steps required to recover
copper by the SART method include:
| · | bleeding a portion of the pregnant solution to the SART process, |
| · | adding sodium hydrosulphide to the solution, |
| · | decreasing the pH of the solution with acid, thereby precipitating copper, |
| · | removing the copper precipitate from the solution by thickening, filtration, and drying, |
| · | increasing the pH of the solution with lime, thereby precipitating gypsum, |
| · | removing the gypsum from the solution by thickening, and |
| · | shipping the filtered copper sulphide product to a smelter for refining. |
| 17.9.4.1 | Carbon-in-Column (CIC) Circuit |
Gold will be recovered from pregnant
leach solution in a two-train, five-stage carbon-in-column (CIC) circuit. Pregnant leach solution will pass through a stationary screen
to remove trash prior to being introduced into the CIC tank line. Most of the pregnant solution will pass directly to the CIC circuit,
and the remainder will be processed for copper recovery by the SART process and then be returned to the CIC circuit.
The CIC circuit will consist of two parallel
trains of five CIC tanks operated in series. Each CIC tank will be a flat bottom tank with an internal distribution plate between the
bottom and the carbon charge. It will be possible to bypass any tank by using a manually operated dart-valve.
Solution (barren solution) will exit
the CIC lines, be combined, and pass through a safety, single deck, vibrating screen to capture carbon unintentionally washed from the
carbon columns. Screen oversize (carbon) will be transferred by gravity to a carbon quench tank.
Carbon will be advanced through the circuit
by a series of recessed impeller, horizontal centrifugal pumps. Loaded carbon advanced from the first CIC vessel will be pumped by the
first carbon transfer pump from each train to a carbon distributor tank. Carbon will be advanced through from tank to tank by additional,
dedicated carbon transfer pumps – one pump for each CIC vessel.
Regenerated and new carbon will be sized
by screening on single deck vibrating screens. Screen undersize will flow by gravity to a carbon fines tank. Screen oversize will flow
by gravity to the last carbon column on either of the CIC lines when carbon is advanced.
Barren solution will discharge from the
CIC tank line and flow into a barren solution tank. Vertical turbine pumps will pump barren solution from the barren solution tank to
the heap leach barren solution distribution system. The pump discharge lines will be combined to a single pipeline to the heap leach area.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 260 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Cyanide solution will be added to the
barren solution tank and/or the first CIC columns.
A portion of the heap leach pregnant
solution, approximately 150 m3/h, will be pumped to the SART process. Sodium hydrosulphide will be added to the solution through
an in-line mixer. Downstream of this in-line mixer, sulfuric acid will be added to the solution prior to mixing in the precipitation reactor.
The discharge from the precipitation
reactor will flow by gravity to a covered copper sulphide thickener. Most of the underflow from this thickener will be recirculated to
the precipitation reactor, while the balance of the thickener underflow will be advanced to a copper sulphide neutralization tank. Overflow
solution from the copper sulphide thickener will collect in a neutralization feed tank.
Sodium hydroxide will be added to the
copper thickener underflow neutralization tank. Neutralized copper sulphide, thickened slurry will be fed to the copper sulphide filter
press. The filter cake will discharge onto the copper sulphide filter cake belt conveyor, which discharges into a bin. The filtered cake
will pass through a dryer. Dried copper sulphide will collect in a bin, be loaded into supersacks, and transported by flatbeds trucks
to market.
Copper sulphide thickener overflow will
collect in a neutralization feed tank. Neutralization feed pump will transfer the overflow solution to the first neutralization reactor.
Lime and recirculated gypsum thickener underflow will be added to this reactor, which overflows into the second neutralization reactor.
Neutralized solution will flow by gravity
to a covered, gypsum thickener. A portion of the thickener underflow will be recirculated to the first neutralization reactor. The balance
of the underflow will be pumped to a gypsum holding tank.
Gypsum thickener overflow will collect
in a treated solution tank, where an antiscalant will be added. This treated solution will be returned to the CIC circuit.
A scrubber will collect fumes from the
precipitation reactor, the copper sulphide thickener, the copper sulphide neutralization tank, the neutralization feed tank, the neutralization
reactors, the gypsum thickener, and the sodium hydro-sulphide storage tank. The pH of the scrubber will be adjusted by NaOH. Some scrubber
discharge will be recirculated, but net scrubber discharge will report to the first neutralization reactor.
Loaded carbon will be acid washed in
a column. A dilute hydrochloric acid solution will be pumped into the bottom of the acid wash tank, flow up through the vessel, and overflow
to the acid tank. This pump will either be operated to circulate solution through the carbon, or the carbon may be left to soak. After
completion of the acid wash solution cycle, the batch of spent acid solution will be pumped to the acidifying reactor tank in the SART
circuit.
A caustic (basic) solution will be pumped
into the bottom of the acid wash tank at the end of its cycle, flow up through the vessel, and overflow to the acid tank. The caustic
solution pump will either be operated to circulate solution through the carbon or to fill the acid wash tank and allow the carbon to soak.
Upon completion of the acid wash cycle, the caustic solution will be used to neutralise the acid solution to pH 8 to 10. Neutralized solution
will be pumped to the barren tank.
| 17.9.4.4 | (Copper) Cold Stripping |
The acid washed loaded carbon will be
cold stripped to remove copper before hot stripping to remove gold.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 261 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Water will be added to the acid washed
carbon and the carbon and water slurry will be pumped from the acid wash vessel to one of the two strip columns. Water transferred with
the carbon (carbon transfer water) will be drained through an internal screen in the bottom of the cold strip tank and will drain to a
carbon fines tank.
Cyanide solution will be pumped into
the top of the cold strip tank, flow down through the vessel, and discharge through the internal screen. The carbon will then be soaked
for the cold strip cycle. Upon completion of the cold strip cycle, the strip solution will be transferred to the SART circuit.
The drained carbon will be rinsed with
barren solution to remove the copper strip solution. The rinse solution will also be transferred to the carbon fines tank.
| 17.9.4.5 | Carbon Elution Circuit |
Elution will be by pressure Zadra techniques.
Barren strip solution, containing sodium hydroxide (caustic) will be heated by a solution heating system and circulated through the bottom
of the elution vessel by a horizontal centrifugal pump. The solution will flow up through the column, exit the top as pregnant solution,
and flow through a heat recovery heat exchanger. The cooled solution will flow to the electrowinning (EW) barren return tank.
After completion of the elution cycle,
the strip solution will be drained through an internal screen in the bottom of the elution tank and will be transferred to the carbon
fines tank.
Gold and silver will be recovered from
pregnant strip solution by the electrowinning process.
Pregnant strip solution will be pumped
from the EW barren return tank to an electrowinning cell. Knitted stainless steel mesh cathodes will be used in the cells for deposition
of the gold and silver. The stripped solution will discharge from the cell and flow back to the EW barren return tank.
When the electrowinning cycle has been
completed, the solution will be pumped from the EW barren return tank to the barren strip solution tank. A high pressure, water wash system
will remove the metal sludge from the cathodes and wash it into an electrowinning wash/ sludge tank. Sludge slurry will be pumped by a
diaphragm pump to a plate and frame, pressure filter. Filter cake will be cleaned from the filters by hand and placed in filter cake boats
for refining.
Filter cake will be mixed with fluxing
materials and charged to an electric, crucible furnace. The melted charge will be poured into conical molds. Doré (gold and silver)
will sink to the bottom of the mold, and slag glass containing fused fluxes and impurities, will float to the top of the mold. Doré
will be sampled for gold content using vacuum tube samples.
After cooling and solidifying, the molds
will be dumped, and the slag will be knocked off the Doré buttons by hand. A vertical drill press will be available as a back-up
sample method for Doré buttons.
Buttons will be cleaned under a water
stream using a needle gun, weighed, and stamped with an identification number and weight. Doré buttons will be the final product
of the operation and will be stored in a safe until shipment.
Slag will be crushed and screened to
recover high-grade chips that will be returned to the melting furnace. Remaining slag will be returned to the heap leach.
Fumes from the melting furnace will be
collected through ductwork and cleaned in a bag house dust collector system before discharging to atmosphere.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 262 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 17.9.4.8 | Carbon Regeneration |
Barren, stripped carbon will be sized
on a single deck, vibrating screen. Screen undersize will flow by gravity to the carbon fines tank. Screen oversize will flow by gravity
to a kiln feed tank.
Carbon will be withdrawn from the kiln
feed tank by a screw conveyor feeder. The feeder will discharge to a horizontal, propane gas fired, carbon regeneration kiln.
The carbon regeneration kiln will discharge
into carbon quench tank. Quenching will be done in a conical bottom tank. Regenerated carbon will be transferred from this tank to an
activated carbon storage tank. New carbon, after being soaked and attrition agitated in a separate tank, will be added as required. Carbon
and water slurry will be pumped from this tank by recessed impeller, horizontal, centrifugal pump to carbon sizing screens for use in
the CIC circuit.
| 17.9.5 | Reagents and Consumables |
Reagent storage, mixing, and distribution
will be provided for all reagents used in the oxide processing circuits. Table 17-9 is a summary of reagents used in the process plant.
Table 17-9: Process Consumables
| Reagent & Consumables |
Units |
Consumption Rate |
| Heap Leach/SART Reagents |
|
|
| Sodium Cyanide (NaCN) |
kg/t |
0.500 |
| Sodium Hydroxide (caustic, NaOH) |
kg/t |
0.130 |
| Pebble Lime (CaO) |
kg/t |
3.516 |
| Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) |
kg/t |
0.010 |
| Sodium Hydrosulphide (NaHS) |
kg/t |
0.025 |
| Sulfuric Acid H2SO4) |
kg/t |
0.328 |
| Activated Carbon |
kg/t |
0.011 |
| Antiscalant |
kg/t |
0.003 |
| Flocculant |
kg/t |
0.00035 |
| |
kg/t |
|
| Primary Crusher - Liners |
kg/t |
0.040 |
| Secondary Crusher – Liners |
kg/t |
0.085 |
| Tertiary Crusher – Liners |
kg/t |
0.085 |
Initial water requirements for the oxide
ore heap leach and gold plant operations will be met by pumping water retained behind a temporary cofferdam located in the heap leach
event pond. After start-up of the sulphide concentrator, process water will be provided from the TMF reclaim water system for use as makeup
water at the heap leach and gold plant. Reclaim water from the sand cyclone thickener overflow sump will be pumped to the ADR Reclaim/Fire
water tank for distribution and to the barren solution tank as makeup water required for the oxide heap leach.
The Casino oxide process facility has
an estimated 12.4 megawatt (MW) total connected load and 9.8 MW total demand load. See Section 21 for power costs also used in the operating
cost estimate and financial model.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 263 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
An air distribution system will be included
to supply required process air to the plant – primarily the crusher. Instrument air will be included for required instrumentation
and controls. Blowers will supply air requirements for the Cyanide Destruction circuit.
| 17.12 | Process Control Philosophy – Oxide Plant |
The plant control system will consist
of a Siemens Simatic PCS 7 Plant Control System (PCS) with PC-based operator interface stations (OIS) located at the ADR plant control
room. The PCS, in conjunction with the OIS, will perform all equipment and process interlocking, control, alarming, trending, event logging,
and report generations. The process control system networks Operation Servers (OS), Process Historian/Information Servers (PH/IS), Web
Server (WS), Operator Server (OS) Clients, Engineering Station (ES), and Web Clients to allow operators in the Control Rooms and in other
designated control stations throughout the site, to monitor and control the industrial process. The ADR plant central control room will
be staffed by trained personnel 24 hours per day.
Vendors’ instrumentation packages
will be integrated with the central control system.
A closed-circuit television (CCTV) system
will monitor various facilities and discharge points. The cameras will be monitored from the central control room.
We would expect the following:
| · | Primary Crushing 100 Area– Control Shack |
| · | Primary Crushing 110 Area– Control Shack |
| · | Grinding 300 Area - Control Room/Server Room |
| · | Concentrate 500 Area - Control Room (small) |
| · | Sand Cyclone 640 Area - Control Room (small |
| · | SART 450.ADR 580 Area - Control Room/Server Room |
Continuous samplers will be provided
on selected streams to calculate the plant material balance and for control of the process. Routine samples of intermediate products and
final products will be collected and analyzed in an assay laboratory where standard assays will be performed. The data obtained will be
used for product quality control and routine process optimization. Feed, doré and solution samples will also be collected and subjected
to routine assay.
| 17.14 | Metallurgical Performance Projection |
According to the metallurgical performance
projections developed from the metallurgical test results average grades and recoveries for the heap leach are shown in Table 17-10.
Table 17-10: Metallurgical Performance
Estimate
| Heap Leach Feed |
Grade |
Recovery |
| Tonnage (kt) |
Cu
% |
Au
g/t |
Ag
g/t |
Cu
% |
Au
% |
Ag
% |
| 209,636 |
0.036 |
0.265 |
1.946 |
18 |
80 |
26 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 264 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The Project site is located about 300
km northwest of Whitehorse, about 200 km northwest of the Village of Carmacks, and about 18 km southwest of the Yukon River. The approximate
elevation of the mine pit is 1,300 m. The plant site coordinates are 6,956,718.230 N, 611,800.867 E. The elevation of the plant site is
approximately 1,190 m.
The mine site is remote from significant
population centres, and accessed via helicopter year-round, or via a gravel airstrip designed to accommodate light aircraft during the
summer months. A winter road has been established to site in intermittent years to bring large equipment to site, and the project is also
accessible via barging up the Yukon River. The Yukon Highway network is paved, including the 180 km of roads from Whitehorse to Carmacks
as well as south to Skagway, Alaska, the optimal port to utilize for concentrate exports and mine supply imports. Whitehorse has an international
airport with daily flights to Vancouver, BC, and multiple flights a week to Calgary, Alberta.
The Yukon electrical grid is at a significant
distance from the mine and at the current time, the utility does not have enough generating capacity to fulfill the requirements for the
Casino mine. The cost-effective solution to provide power for the Project is to build and operate an on-site power plant.
| 18.1.1 | Mine Site Access Road |
Associated Engineering examined various
route options for a year-round access road to Casino. The selected option which appears to have the least environmental impact and the
greatest stakeholder support is a new road from the end of the existing Freegold Road approximately 70 km northwest of the Village of
Carmacks. The proposed Casino/Carmacks access road would be a 132 km, two-lane, gravel resource road designed to accommodate B-Train Double
(BTD) and Tridem trucks. The road design criteria satisfies the guidelines in the BC Ministry of Forests and Range Forest Road Engineering
Guidebook (2nd Edition, 2002) for a 70 km/h design speed with some 50 km/h sections where road geometry is limited by the terrain.
In order to maximise the design speed
and avoid unstable terrain, the route is located as much as possible in valley bottoms. The road surface elevation is designed to be 2.0
m above existing ground in these areas, with the fill material placed over undisturbed soils. This embankment height stabilises the road
against washouts and protects against permafrost degradation under the road.
Where the road climbs out of the valley
bottoms, the road construction method includes both cut and fill. Permafrost rich areas may require buttressing of cut slopes with a layer
of angular rock fill on top of filter fabric. This will prevent permafrost degradation and act as a retaining structure to improve slope
stability.
Most of the fill required for road construction
will be developed from borrow pits located along the road alignment and then hauled to where it is needed. The section of road from the
Selwyn River to the mine is located in soil that is mainly suitable for road embankment construction and can be utilized for fill. Further
soil testing may reveal other locations with borrow suitable for road construction which will result in shorter haul distances and reduced
road construction costs.
There are 16 major bridge crossings located
along the main access road. These include crossings of Bow Creek, Big Creek, Hayes Creek, and Selwyn River along with several tributaries
and side channels. Associated Engineering completed Hydro-technical analysis and topographic site surveys to provide the necessary information
to then complete conceptual bridge designs for each crossing. There are also 71 major culvert crossings that have been identified for
the main access road with estimated diameters ranging from 1,500 mm to 2,400 mm. Detailed hydro-technical analysis has not been completed
for the culvert crossings. Culverts in fish bearing streams will be embedded to provide a simulated natural stream bottom.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 265 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Smaller 500 mm and 600 mm culverts will
be used to control road drainage with the culvert spacing determined by road gradient and natural depressions in the topography. The cost
of upgrading this road will be shared between Industry (in this case the Casino Mine), the Yukon Government and the Canadian Government.
The proportions will be 70% to Industry, and 30% to the Yukon and Canadian Governments. Figure 18-1 shows the proposed mine access road
route.
Figure 18-1: Proposed New Access
Road
Service roads will connect the various
mine and process facilities together with the ancillaries. The roads will be constructed with a minimum 4 m wide all-weather gravel surface.
In general, the maximum grade for the road will be 10%.
An existing road leads northward from
the mine facility to the Yukon River along Britannia Creek. The new freshwater pipeline will generally follow the road alignment. The
roadway will be graded and improved as a service road to facilitate construction, access, inspection, and maintenance of the pipeline.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 266 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The Port of Skagway is located 560 km
from the Casino site and has been selected as the port of export for the Project. The port has historically exported over 600,000 tonnes
annually of lead and zinc concentrates and currently exports the copper concentrates from the Minto operation. An engineering evaluation
has determined that the existing concentrate storage and handling facilities at Skagway can be economically upgraded to serve the Casino
export requirements. The Port of Skagway and AIDEA have expressed interest in providing concentrate storage and load-out services to Casino
in their to be expanded facilities, consistent with the conceptual design prepared by Western. The operating costs in this study reflect
exporting of copper concentrate through the Port of Skagway facilities.
The upgrades to the Port facilities that
are the responsibility of the Port of Skagway are the replacement of the Shiploader, extension of the existing conveyor that supports
the Shiploader, and repair or replacement of the existing dock. Additionally, the Port of Skagway will provide a new Load-out Facility
with the capability to store 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of concentrate. This facility will be complete with dust collection, offloading
and stacking capabilities of a bulk concentrate and access to that equipment. Power will be provided to CMC for operation of the conveying
equipment, dust collection, lighting, the Pebble Lime silo, and the pneumatic equipment, and convenience.
Pebble Lime Storage (a new 3,000-ton
silo) and the means to offload the Pebble Lime from barges and convey it to the silo pneumatically, are the responsibility of CMC.
| 18.3 | Site Layout and Ancillary Facilities |
Project facilities will lie east of Patton
Hill. The open pit mine is located between the headwaters of Casino Creek and Canadian Creek and will occupy an area of more than 300
ha. Figure 18-2 shows the overall project site layout.
A small valley about 1 km south of the
pit, within the catchment of the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) area, will be filled with oxide mineralized material to form the heap
leach pad. An earthen embankment at the eastern end of the pad will provide structural support for the heap leach. A spill and runoff
control collection pond termed the “Events Pond” will be built directly downhill from the heap leach pad.
The TMF will be located southeast of
the pit and plant site within the valley formed by headwaters of Casino Creek. It will store approximately 805 million tonnes (Mt)
of tailings together with 615 Mt of potentially reactive waste rock. The TMF will include a water reclaim system to collect supernatant
water and return it to the process.
There are two primary crushers: one for
the oxide mineralized material and one for the sulphide mineralized material. The primary gyratory crusher pad where each primary crusher
will be located will be constructed east of the pit. An overland conveyor belt will carry the sulphide mineralized material 0.86 km to
the southwest from the crusher to the coarse mineralized material stockpile, which is located immediately northwest of the processing
plant. The crushed oxide mineralized material will be carried to the heap leach by a separate overland conveyor system approximately 1.6 km
long. The Oxide Crushing Facility consists of the Primary Crusher, a Secondary Crusher, and a Tertiary Crusher. The Secondary and the
Tertiary Crushing Facilities have associated Screening Facilities.
Low-grade mineralized material will be
placed in several temporary stockpiles adjacent to the plant site and crusher for processing in later years.
The concentrator consisting of the grinding
mills, flotation circuits, reagent mixing, storage, and distribution systems, concentrate filter facility and thickeners will be located
on an area of relatively flat terrain about 2 km south of the pit and crusher.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 267 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 18-2: Overall Site Plan
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 268 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A truck shop and associated facilities
will be constructed on a 4.5 ha pad adjacent to the open pit mines eastern exit. The other facilities located on the Truck Shop pad are
the Truck Warehouse and the Truck wash. The Truck Shop also provides the alternate route for oversized vehicles that are too large to
travel through the Haul Truck tunnel that provides access along the North Access Road the from the Carmacks/Casino Site Access road to
the Casino Concentrator Plant.
A nominal 1,400-person capacity construction
and permanent camp will be installed. A 300-man, fabric structure, Pioneer Camp is to be constructed. The Pioneer Camp will be expanded
by a 200-man dormitory expansion. The Permanent Main Camp will have approximately 774 “Jack and Jill” beds and approximately
108 Private suites for approximately 882 beds. Additionally, there will be construction camps for off-site construction provided by the
contractor(s) for access road construction.
| 18.3.4 | Operational Support Facilities |
The majority of ancillary buildings are
proposed to be located at the processing plant site. The Administration building will provide office space for both the construction effort
and operations. The change house (mine dry) and laboratory buildings will be located near the mill and flotation buildings. A warehouse
and laydown area will be provided for receiving and storage of parts and supplies, and for maintenance of plant mechanical and electrical
equipment. A light vehicle maintenance building is proposed at the plant site apart from the truck shop. All of these buildings will be
pre-engineered steel structures. See Figure 18-3.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 269 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 18-3: Plant Site Plan
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 270 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 18.3.5 | Guard Shed/Scale House |
A Guard Shed/Scale House at the facility
entrance will provide 24/7 site security and truck scale service. The guard shed will be of modular construction.
The Casino Mine site is remote and the
required workforce is expected to be approximately 1,400 with some operational personnel during construction and 600 to 700 during operations.
Access to the site for this number of personnel will be best served by aircraft. The Project plan includes a new 1,600 m airstrip and
pre-engineered air terminal building. The airstrip is planned to be located off the main access road into the site. It will be located
approximately six kilometres east of the Permanent Camp Site.
Various aircraft have been considered
to provide air service transport to the site. Aircraft considered suitable for this service includes the ATR 42 (capacity 42 passengers)
and the Bombardier Dash 8- 200 series turbo-prop aircraft. Both aircraft are high-wing turboprop and well suited for the service
conditions.
Flights to the site will originate from
Whitehorse and other Yukon communities for the Yukon based workforce. Workers from other locations in Canada will connect with scheduled
flights from Vancouver or other major centres.
The new airstrip site provides safe aircraft
operations during all visible weather conditions. The airstrip design criteria have been developed to conform to the Transport Canada
Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312). The airstrip consists of a Code 3C non-instrument runway generally oriented
northeast to southwest. It is 1,600 m long with 60 m overrun beyond the thresholds at each end for a total length of 1,720 m. The
required runway width is 30 m, and the total graded width is 80 m. The airstrip embankment is raised a minimum of 1.5 m above the existing
ground to provide a stable base and to prevent any ground ice from melting. There is a taxiway at the northeast end connecting to an apron
for aircraft unloading and a parking area at the start of the airstrip access road. The new airfield is located on the right side of Figure
18-2.
There will be two primary crushers: One
crusher will do the initial crushing of the sulphide mineralized material, and the other will do the initial crushing of the oxide mineralized
material. Each primary crusher will be housed within concrete structures. They will be placed only a few metres below existing grade in
order to minimize blasting of bedrock. These structures will be surrounded by “U”-shaped Mechanically Stabilized Earth (Hilfiker
or equivalent) retaining walls to form the truck maneuvering area around the dump hopper, roughly at the elevation of the exit from the
pit.
| 18.4.2 | Gold Recovery & SART Building |
The oxide crushing facility will crush
ore and transfer to the heap leach pad via a series of overland and grasshopper conveyors. Barren process solution will be applied to
the oxide ore material lifts via irrigation lines. The irrigation lines will be buried to prevent freezing during winter conditions. Pregnant
solution will be collected and pumped to the gold extraction plant for metal extraction and recycled for re-use in the leaching process.
The ADR (Adsorption, Desorption and Recovery) and SART (Sulphidization, Acidification, Recycling, and Thickening) facilities will be located
in a single structure.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 271 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The Grinding Building (Mill) will house
the 12.2 m (40 ft.) diameter SAG mill and two 8.5 m (28 ft.) diameter ball mills. The SAG mill and ball mill areas will each have a 90-tonne
overhead bridge crane for maintenance.
| 18.4.4 | Flotation/Reagent Storage & Mixing |
The flotation circuits will be located
within a structurally independent building adjacent and connected to the grinding building. Reagent storage and mixing facilities will
be fully enclosed and placed adjacent to the flotation building. The 8,000-tonne lime silo will be located apart from the Mill/Flotation
building.
| 18.5 | Water Supply and Distribution |
The main fresh water supply will be supplied
from the Yukon River. The water will be collected in a riverbank caisson and radial well system (Ranney Well) and pumped through an above
ground insulated 762 mm (30 in) diameter by 17.4 km long pipeline with four booster stations. The design flow rate of the system
is 3,200 m3/h.
The fire water requirement is 341 m3/h
for two hours. This demand is satisfied by designing the storage pond with a fire reserve capacity of 682 m3 in the lower portion
of the pond that will be unavailable for other uses.
The fire water requirement is 341 m3/h
for two hours. This demand is satisfied by installing a 10 m x 10 m storage tank that is kept full and ice free by passing the fresh water
supply through. The entire Fresh Water Pond is an active backup for the fire system.
Potable water will be produced by filtering
and chlorinating fresh water and will be stored and distributed separately.
| 18.5.4 | Water Supply for the Leach, ADM and SART Facilities |
Initial water requirements for the gold
plant and oxide mineralized material heap leach operations will be met by pumping water retained behind a temporary cofferdam located
in the TMF during construction of the starter dam. After start-up of the concentrator, process water will be provided from the TMF
reclaim water system.
| 18.5.5 | Process Water Supply |
The NAG tailings is thickened to 55%
solids in the Tailings Thickeners located at the concentrator. The underflow discharges through a 24” rubber lined steel pipeline
down the steep slope. A pressure reducing choke station will be installed and the discharge will continue through a 48” concrete
pipe launder to the Sand Cyclone Plant near the TSF. The cyclone underflow goes to the embankment and the overflow goes to the Sand Cyclone
Thickener. The overflow of the Sand Cyclone Thickener reports to the Sand Cyclone Thickener Overflow Sump.
The Water Management Pond is located
at the downstream toe of the TSF dam to collect seepage water. The pumps in the pond will deliver a design flow of 924 m3/hr
through a booster pump station to the Sand Cyclone Overflow Sump. There are two sets of pumps in the Sand Cyclone overflow sump. One set
supplies Dilution water back to the Sand Cyclone Feed Sump. The second set of pumps delivers the balance of the overflow water to the
reclaim system Booster Station No. 1. ADR plant will be fed from this stream.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 272 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The PAG Tailings is thickened to 45%
solids in the Pyrite Thickener located at the concentrator. The underflow discharges through a 24” steel pipeline to a pressure
reducing choke station and continues to the designated PAG area of the pond through HDPE piping.
There will be a total of three barges
with three vertical turbine pumps per barge. Two barges will be in the PAG area, and one barge will be in the NAG area. The nominal flow
for the barges is approximately 2500 m3/hr. This would require four to six pumps operating out of the total of nine.
The flow from the barges will pass through
two temporary relay pump stations to Booster Station No. 1.
Booster Station No. 1 delivers a nominal
3,458 m3/hr to the Process Water Pond.
| 18.6 | Power Generation and Distribution |
| 18.6.1 | LNG Receiving, Storage and Distribution Facilities |
LNG will be transported to the site from
Fort Nelson, British Columbia via tanker trucks and stored on-site in a large 10,000 m3 site-fabricated storage tank to provide
fuel for the power plant. An LNG receiving station is provided to unload the LNG tankers and transfer the LNG into the storage facility.
An LNG vaporization facility is provided to convert the LNG into gas at a suitable supply pressure to operate the power generation equipment.
Electrical power generation for the Project
will be developed in two phases. An initial power plant designated the Supplementary Power Plant will be constructed in the vicinity of
the main workforce housing complex to provide power to the camp, for construction activities, and to oxide crushing, conveying and heap
leach facilities that go into operation before the main power plant is operational.
The Supplementary Power Plant will consist
of three 2250 kW diesel internal combustion engines (ICE). Two of the generators will remain at the Workforce Housing complex and the
third will be relocated to the Sand Cyclone (Area 640) facility to provide standby/emergency power to this area after the concentrator
start-up.
A Main Power Plant will be constructed
at the Casino main mill and concentrator complex to supply the electrical energy required for operations throughout the mine site. The
primary electrical power generation will be provided by three Gas Turbine driven generators (two Single Fuel Gas Turbines, one Dual Fuel
Gas Turbine) and a steam generator, operating in combined cycle mode (CCGT) with a total installed capacity of approximately 200 MW. The
nominal running load to the mine and concentrator complex is about 130 MW. Three diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) driven generators
will provide another 6.75 MW of power for black start capability, emergency power, and to complement the gas turbine generation when required.
The gas turbines will be fuelled by natural gas (supplied as liquefied natural gas, or LNG). One of the three will have Dual Fuel capabilities
- LNG and Diesel.
The 34.5 kV distribution systems will
radiate from a 34.5 kV switchgear line-up with feeders to the SAG mill, Ball Mill No. #1, Ball Mill No. #2, and feeders to the mill and
flotation areas in cable tray using insulated copper conductors. Overhead line feeder circuits with aluminum conductor steel reinforced
(ACSR) will be provided for the tailings reclaim water, fresh water from the Yukon River, crushing/conveying and SART/ADR, camp site and
two feeders to the pit loop.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 273 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Electric power utilization voltages will
be 4,160 volts for motors 300 horsepower (hp) and above, 575 volts for three-phase motors 250 hp and below. For lighting, small loads
and building services 600/347 or 208/120 volts will be the utilization voltage.
| 18.7 | Tailings Management Facility |
The principal objectives for the design
of the Tailings Management Facility (TMF) are safe and economic storage for tailings and waste rock, protection of the regional groundwater
and surface waters both during operations and in the long term (post-closure), and to achieve effective reclamation at mine closure. The
design of the TMF addresses the following requirements:
| · | Permanent, secure, and total confinement of all tailings and waste rock materials within an engineered
facility |
| · | Placement of potentially acid generating (PAG) tailings remote from the main embankment |
| · | Maintaining surface drainage (including stormwater runoff) remote from the main embankment to the extent
practical |
| · | Control, collection, and removal of free draining liquids from the tailings during operations for recycling
as process water to the maximum practical extent |
| · | The use of hydrocyclones and vibratory dewatering screens to generate sand for embankment construction
from the non-acid generating (NAG) tailings |
| · | Monitoring the facility to confirm that the quantitative performance objectives (QPOs) are achieved, and
the design intent is met |
| · | Staged development of the facility over the life of the Project |
| · | An end land use that meets the objectives of the affected First Nations, governments, and community stakeholders |
The TMF impoundment comprises two confining
embankments (Main, West Saddle), three waste storage areas (West Dump, North Dump, Divider Berm), two tailings cells (NAG, PAG), the cyclone
sand plant, a cyclone overflow tailings thickener, tailings distribution pipelines, reclaim water systems, supernatant (surface water)
pond, and water management systems (collection ditches, under-drains, water manage ponds and seepage recycle system).
| · | The Main Embankment will comprise a valley-fill impoundment developed in stages throughout the life of
the mine using a combination of suitable quarried rock fill borrow materials and cyclone underflow sand. The initial Starter Embankment
will store runoff as a fresh water source for mill start-up water during pre-production and accommodate tailings and PAG waste rock and
overburden during the initial two years of operations (until the end of Year 2). Cyclone underflow sand will be used to construct ongoing
raises of the Main Embankment, starting in Year 1, and continuing throughout the operating life of the Project. |
| · | The West Saddle Embankment will be constructed in pre-production (starting in Year -3) to provide a pipeline
corridor at a suitable grade for tailings delivery to the cyclone sand plant and the TMF. The embankment will be constructed using suitable
earth and rockfill materials and an upstream liner will be installed prior to it being required for tailings and water storage in approximately
Year 10. |
| · | The West Waste Dump (WWD), North Waste Dump (NWD) will be developed within the TMF. The waste dumps will
be developed concurrently with TMF filling to provide a dry, stable placement surface. The dumps will be maintained at an elevation above
the supernatant pond with the eventual submergence by tailings by the end of operations. |
| · | The Divider Berm will be constructed with waste rock and overburden to separate the NAG and PAG tailings
within the TMF. It will provide access to the eastern extent of the project site and a dry, stable surface for the tailings distribution
pipeline corridors. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 274 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | The PAG tailings line will discharge into the PAG Tailings Cell. Valved tees located along the line will
enable deposition to be controlled to promote saturated conditions within the PAG Tailings Cell. |
| · | NAG tailings may also be stored within the PAG Tailings Cell to promote even filling and minimize the
hydraulic gradient between NAG and PAG tailings Cells. |
The NAG Tailings Cell will primarily
store the thickened cyclone sand plant overflow. Non-acid generating whole tailings from the mill during periods of cyclone plant maintenance,
as well as screening losses from the tailings dewatering plant will also be discharged to the NAG Tailings Cell. The same piping system
will be used to discharge the cyclone overflow stream and the undiluted Bulk NAG tailings to the TMF when the cyclone station is bypassed.
Tailings discharge into the TMF will be from a valved spigots along the embankment crest. Valves will be spaced at approximately 100 metre
intervals with rotation between off-takes as appropriate for good beach development within the NAG cell and to maintain a maximum tailings
beach length between the supernatant pond and the main embankment.
| 18.7.2 | Tailings Characteristics |
Mining of the open pit will yield approximately
1.2 billion tonnes (Bt) of mineralized material. The mill will operate at a nominal throughput of approximately 120,000 tonnes per day
(tpd), producing two primary tailings materials:
| · | 24% of the mill tailings are predicted to be Potentially-Acid Generating (PAG) that will be maintained
in a sub-aqueous state within the TMF impoundment. |
| · | 76% of the mill tailings are predicted to be NAG and will be used to produce sand for construction of
the TMF Main Dam. The NAG tailings are relatively coarse with an average P80 of approximately 200 µm (the underflow has a P80
of 240 µm) which makes them amenable to efficient sand recovery with cyclones and dewatering screens. |
It is estimated that approximately 50%
of the NAG tailings can be recovered as cyclone underflow sand that is suitable for embankment construction when the cyclone plant is
operating. The remaining 50% of NAG tailings (cyclone overflow) will be thickened prior to being discharged into the TMF impoundment.
It is estimated that 85% of the underflow sand that reports to dewatering screens will be recovered; the remaining material lost through
the screens will be thickened with the cyclone overflow and directed to the TMF NAG Tailings Cell. A schematic flow diagram showing the
tailings mass balance split and distribution is shown on Figure 18-4.
Cyclone sand for embankment construction
will initially be produced with a fines content (% passing a #200 sieve) of approximately 12% to 15% to achieve the required permeability
and drainage characteristics. This criterion may be adjusted with ongoing experience and data collected during operations; other similar
operations have been able to meet the design objectives with fines contents of 18% or greater (Barrera et al, 2011).
The current particle size distribution
of the bulk NAG tailings (approximately 58% sand fraction) and information provided by cyclone suppliers indicates that single stage cycloning
will be sufficient to achieve a suitable sand product with recovery of approximately 50% by weight from the bulk tailings stream. The
cyclone feed will require water addition to dilute the solids content to approximately 36% and the sand (cyclone underflow) product will
be produced at approximately 74% solids by weight. This will require dilution to a solids content of approximately 65% for distribution
to the hydraulic cells.
Cyclone overflow tailings are described
as an inorganic, non-plastic silt with sand (23% sand, 77% fines) with a liquid limit of 24%. Cyclone underflow tailings are described
as a non-plastic sand with some silt (85% sand, 15% fines) with a specific gravity of 2.8. Additional laboratory testing included slurry
consolidation permeability tests for the cyclone overflow tailings, and standard proctor and permeability tests for the cyclone underflow
tailings.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 275 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 18-4: Tailings Conceptual
Mass Balance
| 18.7.3 | Storage Requirements |
The storage requirements are based upon
the mine plan developed by Independent Mining Consultants Inc. (IMC) dated April 5, 2022. The TMF is sized to provide sufficient capacity
to store approximately 805 Mt of tailings and 615 Mt of PAG waste rock and overburden materials. The remaining 491 Mt of NAG tailings
(cyclone underflow) will be used for embankment and buttress construction. Additional freeboard allowances are included in the design
to manage the normal operating pond volume, seasonal inflows, and extreme storm events.
| 18.7.4 | Hazard Classification |
The Canadian Dam Association Dam Safety
Guidelines (CDA, 2013; CDA, 2019) was used to determine the dam hazard classification during operations and suggested minimum target levels
for some design criteria, such as the inflow design flood (IDF) and earthquake design ground motion (EDGM) for the TMF. A dam classification
of VERY HIGH was assigned for the TMF embankments for operations. A classification of EXTREME was selected for closure.
The following design flood and design
earthquake were adopted for the TMF for operations:
| · | IDF (operations) ‒ two thirds between
1/1000 return period and probable maximum flood (PMF) for a 72-hour duration |
| · | EDGM (operations and closure) ‒ the
greater of the 1/10,000 return period or the maximum credible earthquake (MCE). |
Seepage and stability analyses were completed
along the critical sections of the TMF embankment and Waste Dumps (i.e., ultimate stage, maximum embankment height). Design basis criteria
and model results are presented in the TMF Design Report (KP, 2022a).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 276 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Starter Embankment
The Starter Embankment will comprise
an approximately 138 m high embankment (crest to downstream toe) constructed to an elevation of 845 m. The Starter Embankment will provide
tailings, water, and waste rock containment until the end of Year 2 to allow enough cyclone underflow sand to be produced and placed
to meet subsequent embankment raise requirements. The embankment shell zones for the Starter Embankment will require approximately 20.7
million cubic metres (Mm3) of fill material for construction, sourced from suitable earth and rockfill material quarried from
within the TMF basin; approximately 11.6 Mm3 will be required during pre-production and approximately 9.1 Mm3
will be placed in Year 1. Zone C1 is a selectively sized common fill material and Zone C2 is general rockfill.
The Starter Embankment will be constructed
in downstream raises with 2.5H:1V upstream and 2H:1V downstream slopes. The upstream face of the embankment will be lined with a linear
low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane. A grout curtain will be installed along the upstream toe of the embankment, along with construction
of a concrete plinth, and 10 m wide benches on the upstream face of the embankment to facilitate installation and tie-in of the LLDPE
geomembrane. A liner bedding material and non-woven geotextile will be placed on the upstream face of the embankment prior to installation
of the geomembrane. The grout curtain and geomembrane will limit seepage from the facility during initial operations when water storage
may be required. A seepage collection system will collect and convey water away from the Starter Embankment. A conceptual section of the
Starter Embankment is shown on Figure 18-5Figure 18-5.
The Starter Embankment foundations will
require clearing and stripping in preparation for fill placement. An average stripping depth of 0.3 metres has been assumed within the
embankment footprint. Unsuitable material within the embankment foundation, including colluvial apron or other ice-rich overburden, will
be excavated to competent foundation (i.e., sound bedrock), absent of frost susceptible soil. The average thickness of the colluvial apron
and other ice-rich overburden is expected to be approximately 20 metres within the valley bottom and 2.5 metres along the valley sides
based on the findings of site investigations. The excavation slopes within overburden will be laid back to maintain stability during construction.
Localized overburden slope stabilization may be required in specific areas. Potential stabilization methods include grouted soil nails
and groundwater depressurization and drainage.
The excavated material is assumed not
to be suitable construction material and will be placed within the Divider Berm between the PAG and NAG Tailings Cells prior to establishment
of a NAG tailings beach. Approximately 9.1 Mm3 of unsuitable material will be excavated as part of the Starter Embankment
foundation preparation.
Figure 18-5: Tailings Management
Facility Starter Embankment – Conceptual Section (KP, 2022a)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 277 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Main Embankment and Buttress
Cyclone overflow sand production beginning
in Year 1 of operations will be used to extend the downstream shell of the TMF embankment, allowing the embankment crest to be raised
above the Starter Embankment after approximately two years of operations. The sand will be placed directly in hydraulic cells or dewatered
with vibratory screens for subsequent mechanical placement. Cyclone sand will be used to construct centerline raises of the embankment
from Year 1 throughout operations to an ultimate crest elevation of 1000 m with a maximum embankment height of approximately 315
m (crest to downstream toe). The cyclone sand will be well-drained to progressively develop a zone of drained tailings solids within the
facility along the embankment. A drainage zone underneath the maximum embankment section, with connection to the embankment abutments
through regularly spaced toe drains, will facilitate drainage of the cyclone sand. The Main Embankment will be constructed with a minimum
downstream slope of 3.5H:1V. Surplus sand produced through cycloning and screening operations will be used to construct a buttress for
improved and robust embankment stability beyond the minimum requirements and to reduce the ultimate volume of tailings impounded within
the TMF. A total of approximately 172 Mm3 of cyclone sand will be used in construction of the Main Embankment, with an additional
56 Mm3 of cyclone sand available for the buttress. A conceptual section of the Main Embankment is shown on Figure 18-6.
The TMF Main Embankment and Buttress
foundations will be prepared in the same manner as the Starter Embankment foundation, including clearing, stripping, and excavation of
unsuitable material. The excavated material will be placed within the Divider Berm. Approximately 20 Mm3 of unsuitable material
will be excavated as part of the Main Embankment and Buttress foundation preparation.
Figure 18-6: Tailings Management
Facility Main Embankment – Conceptual Section (KP, 2022a)
The Main Embankment will be primarily
constructed using hydraulic sand placement in cells to allow a high level of compaction. The hydraulic cell method involves the construction
and maintenance of long, narrow cells (nominally assumed to be approximately 100 m by 20 m) along the embankment. Cyclone sand
will be discharged hydraulically into each construction cell to depths of 0.5 m to 2.0 m and will be heavily track-packed by dozers and
compacted with vibratory rollers if needed to achieve the target density. Cyclone underflow pipelines will be routed along pipeline benches
above the sand cell operation or along confining flow control berms. Drainage recovery ditching will be routed to localized sumps for
collection and transport to water collection ponds. Water expelled from the sand will drain via ditches away from the cells to the water
management pond at the toe of the embankment and recovered to the TMF area. The in-situ density, moisture content, and fines content will
be verified with quality control and quality assurance programs throughout construction and operations.
Construction of each of the embankment
stages will correspond with cyclone sand availability and the storage requirements. Sand cell placement operations occur simultaneously
in two or more cells to match sand cyclone plant operations. The cyclone plant and hydraulic sand placement activities are assumed to
be operational for an average nine months of the year (with a 90% sand plant availability to account for maintenance and other downtime).
Hydraulic placement of cyclone underflow sand is not anticipated to be practical for approximately three months of the year due to freezing
winter temperatures. During this period, the coarse cyclone underflow will be processed using dewatering screens during the winter months
to produce sand that can be transported by conveyor to the Main Embankment where it will be stockpiled or used directly for construction.
Screen sand will be placed, spread, and compacted to meet the density specifications.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 278 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A schematic of the embankment construction,
including hydraulic cell sequencing, is shown on Figure 18-7.
Figure 18-7: Main Embankment Construction
– Conceptual Schematic (KP, 2022a)
West Saddle Embankment
The West Saddle Embankment will be developed
in pre-production years using non-acid generating waste rock and overburden material available from initial open pit stripping operations
or earth and rockfill from local borrow sources. The embankment will be raised to an elevation of 1,000 m with a maximum embankment height
of approximately 40 m (crest to downstream toe). The upstream face of the embankment will be lined with a linear low-density polyethylene
(LLDPE) geomembrane system similar to the Main Embankment.
The West Saddle Embankment foundation
will be cleared and stripped in preparation for fill placement. Information collected during the site investigation programs indicate
that the depth to bedrock throughout the area is approximately 2.5 metres and the shallow overburden likely comprises residual and colluvial
soils. Areas of unsuitable material within the embankment foundation, including colluvial apron or other ice-rich overburden, will be
excavated to competent foundation, absent of frost susceptible soil.
Water Management System
The Water Management System for the TMF
has been designed to accommodate seepage through the TMF embankment, water recovered from the cyclone sand embankment construction, and
surface runoff. The Water Management System consists of an under-drain system and a surface ditch system that discharge into a Water Management
Pond located downgradient of the Main Embankment. The under-drain system comprises the following components:
| · | A 1 x 1 m² cross-sectional gravel seepage collection system with 300 mm diameter perforated collection
pipes along the upstream toe and maximum cross-section alignment of the Starter Embankment to collect and convey drainage and seepage
away from the Starter Embankment. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 279 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | A 150 x 6 m² cross-sectional gravel drainage blanket to drain the Main Embankment foundation to the
downstream Water Management Pond. The blanket drain will be extended in two or more phases as the footprint of the embankment increases
with staged embankment expansions. |
| · | A series of 10 x 4 m² cross-sectional gravel drainage finger drains, to collect and convey embankment
construction water and infiltrated surface water towards the blanket drain. The finger drains will be extended with the footprint of the
Main Embankment throughout construction. |
A filter and transition zone will surround
both the blanket and finger drains to prevent cyclone sand and fines migration. The blanket and finger drains will be preferentially graded
to promote gravity drainage. Excavation below the prepared foundation surface may be required to achieve the design grades.
The surface ditch system has been configured
as a dual-ditch design. Two parallel ditches will be constructed: upgradient ditches for ‘non-contact water’ and downgradient
ditches for ‘contact water’ generated by either precipitation or cyclone sand placement. The system will reduce the quantity
of water that requires storage in the Water Management Pond and pumping back to the TMF. Scour protection of the ditching will be required
to prevent erosion of the ditch channels. The ditch system will be developed in phases to accommodate staged embankment expansions, similar
to the underdrain system.
Water management ponds will operate with
minimal storage and are sized to contain the design storm event. An interim stage water management pond, sited immediately downstream
of the Main Embankment footprint, will be actively managed for the first ten years of operations, during early stages of embankment expansion.
A final water management pond, sited immediately downstream of the buttress footprint, will be actively managed from approximately Year
10 to the end of operations. A pump station will return the water from the water management pond back to the TMF. Supplemental booster
pump stations will be required as the TMF embankment height increases.
Reclaim Water Systems
The Starter Embankment
will impound water for mill commissioning and start-up during pre-production. Mill process water for ongoing operations and water for
cyclone plant operations will be reclaimed from the TMF supernatant pond TMF water management ponds, and a thickener installed adjacent
to the cyclone station that receives cyclone overflow and recovers water to sustain the cyclone operation thereby eliminating this volume
from circulating through the TMF basin. The thickener will produce an underflow at approximately 50% by weight solids which is directed
to the TMF. The Process water demand is supplemented by the Yukon River fresh water supply system. The fresh water supply system is designed
to offset any predicted water deficit conditions during mine operations and is sized to supply all the process water requirements, if
needed.
Water reclaimed from the TMF consists
of supernatant from the settled tailings, runoff from precipitation, and snowmelt within the TMF catchment area. Pipelines will convey
the reclaimed water to the settlement pond located upgradient of the mill and a water head tank upgradient of the cyclone plant.
The TMF is designed as a zero-surface
water discharge facility during the operating life of the facility. A water treatment facility is installed adjacent to the thickener
as a facility to treat and release tailings supernatant in the event a positive water balance arises, that is beyond design parameters,
and requires a water release to restore the operational water balance.
A life-of-mine (LOM) water balance model
(WBM) was completed to assess surplus and/or deficit conditions at the Casino site throughout the full life cycle of the Project. Water
balance model objectives, design basis criteria and model results for the tailings management facility are presented in the TMF Design
Report (KP, 2022a).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 280 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 18.7.7 | Instrumentation and Monitoring |
Geotechnical instrumentation, comprising
vibrating wire piezometers, thermistors, slope inclinometers, and movement (survey) monuments will be installed at selected planes along
the Main Embankment and West Saddle Embankment during construction and over the life of the project. Additional remote sensing methods
such as drone-based imagery and topographic data, satellite imagery, and InSAR may also be used for TMF monitoring. The instrumentation
will be monitored during the construction, operation, and after closure of the TMF to assess embankment performance against the Quantitative
Performance Objectives (QPOs) and to identify any conditions different to those assumed during design and analysis. Monitoring of civil
and mechanical operational components will be a daily/shift requirement, to confirm that the systems are functioning correctly. Amendments
to the on-going designs and/or remediation work can be implemented to respond to the changed conditions, should the need arise.
On-going water quality monitoring will
be required to confirm the effectiveness of the Water Management System including the installation of groundwater wells at suitable locations
downstream of the embankment footprint.
In addition to the routine inspections
carried out by mine personnel on a shift/daily/weekly and monthly basis, the TMF will be regularly (e.g., annually) inspected by a qualified
Geotechnical Engineer to ensure it is operating in a safe and efficient manner. Additionally, a formal dam safety review will be conducted
every 5 years. The dam classification is reviewed during the dam safety review process and should also be routinely reviewed as part of
the annual audit.
The Independent Engineering Review Panel
(IERP) that was engaged prior to the Feasibility Study will be maintained throughout the mine life and into Closure, as necessary.
| 18.7.8 | Closure and Reclamation |
The primary objective of the closure
and reclamation initiatives will be to eventually return the TMF site to a landform with pre-mining usage and capability. The TMF will
be required to maintain long-term stability, protect the downstream environment, and safely manage surface water. Upon mine closure, surface
facilities will be removed in stages and full reclamation of the TMF will be initiated. General aspects of the closure plan include:
| · | Selective discharge of NAG tailings or placement of other suitable materials around the facility during
the final years of operations to establish a final tailings surface and water pond that will facilitate post closure surface water management
and reclamation. The NAG tailings or other suitable material will be used to encapsulate and maintain the PAG tailings and waste rock
in a saturated state. |
| · | Dismantling and removal of the tailings and reclaim delivery systems, cyclone plant and all pipelines,
structures and equipment not required beyond mine closure. |
| · | Construction of semi-passive treatment system if required to treat water within TMF or Water Management
Pond areas |
| · | Removal of the seepage collection system at such time that suitable water quality for direct release is
achieved. |
| · | Construction of an overflow spillway and channel to allow surface water discharge downstream of the TMF. |
| · | Removal and regrading of all access roads, ponds, ditches and borrow areas not required beyond mine closure. |
| · | Long-term stabilization of all exposed erodible materials. |
| · | During the closure phase of the project, suitable cover material and seeding will be placed on the beach
surface after tailings deposition ends to promote revegetation and minimise dusting potential. |
The water balance model developed for
the TMF indicates that there will be a water surplus at closure. The spillway will be constructed at closure to safely route and discharge
excess water accumulation within the TMF and to provide safe passage of stormwater volumes from the TMF. The closure spillway will be
located close to the west abutment of the West Saddle Embankment to provide long term protection against overtopping of the TMF during
the post closure years. The spillway will be routed from the TMF to the south, ultimately terminating at an erosion protected plunge pool
at the confluence of Brynelson Creek. The closure spillway will be comprised of a channel excavated in bedrock below the crest of the
embankment. Sections of the spillway channel and plunge pool excavated within overburden will require armoring to prevent erosion.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 281 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The seepage collection ponds/sumps and
recycle pumps will be retained until monitoring results indicate that seepage collected from the TMF at the Water Management Pond is of
suitable quality for discharge to the downstream environment or a semi-passive treatment system has been commissioned, if required. The
groundwater monitoring wells and all other geotechnical instrumentation will be retained for use as long-term monitoring devices.
Post-closure requirements will also include
scheduled inspections of the TMF and an on-going evaluation of water quality, flow rates and instrumentation records to confirm the design
assumptions for closure.
Heap leach facility operations will commence
during pre-production stripping of the open pit. The heap leach pad will be stacked with ore and leached simultaneously from Year -2 through
Year 22 of mine operations. The ore will be leached at a nominal rate of 9.125 Mt per year at a stacking rate of approximately 25,000
tpd. The proposed HLF is located on a southeast facing hillslope, approximately 1 km south of the open pit.
The leach pad will comprise a fully contained
gold ore treatment facility. The leaching process will involve the irrigation of weak cyanide solution over successive lifts of heaped
ore. The primary design objectives for the proposed heap leach pad are as follows:
| · | Provide a stable and cost-effective configuration for staged heap development |
| · | Effectively collect and convey leachate solutions to the process plant or the events pond while ensuring
maximum recovery |
| · | Provide for secure containment of events solutions while monitoring and minimizing losses due to leakage |
| · | Minimize surface runoff entering the leach pad area while providing for the collection of direct runoff
from the heap area |
| · | Sequential, staged development and leaching operations with particular emphasis on winter operations,
and |
| · | Effective decommissioning and reclamation of all heap leach facility components. |
Gold ore to feed the HLF will be located
in a temporary stockpile east of the open pit. The ore will be crushed and transported to the pad by conveyor. The ore will be placed
on the pad for approximately 300 days each year. The stacked ore will be irrigated with cyanide solution year-round using a drip-type
irrigation system.
The HLF consists of the following system
components:
| · | A confining embankment, located at the toe of the proposed heap leach pad, to improve stability of the
heap leach pad, collect leachate solution, and store/attenuate storm runoff prior to spilling to the Events Pond. |
| · | A composite liner system consisting of ‘barrier’ and ‘drainage’ layers using a
combination of synthetic liner (LLDPE) and compacted soil liner to maximize pregnant solution recovery and minimize leakage losses through
the bottom and sides of the heap leach pad. |
| · | A leachate solution collection system (LSCS) consisting of collection pipes and sumps designed to streamline
solution collection and conveyance off the leach pad. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 282 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | A leak detection and recovery system (LDRS) designed to capture and convey any solution which leaks through
the composite liner system via a combination of drainage layers, collection pipes, and drainage trenches. Leakage recovered by the LDRS
will be conveyed into the LDRS sump at the toe of the confining embankment. |
| · | A leach solution application system (LSAS) to irrigate the heap leach pad with chemical solution to leach
the gold from the stacked leach ore. |
| · | An events pond designed to provide storm storage that exceeds the in-heap storage capacity of the HLF.
The pond is situated immediately down gradient of the HLF confining embankment, and the pond inflow is conveyed via the confining
embankment spillway. |
| · | A perimeter berm with diversion and runoff collection ditches intercept overland surface runoff around
the HLF pad and to convey non-contact water flows to the TMF, and contact water flows to the in-heap events pond. |
The HLF is shown in plan view on Figure
18-8, and in section view on Figure 18-9.
Figure 18-8: Heap Leach Facility
General Arrangement (KP, 2022b - in progress)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 283 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 18-9: Heap Leach Facility
Cross-Section (KP, 2022b - in progress)
| 18.8.2 | Storage Requirements |
The ore stacking schedule for the heap
leach pad has been designed as ‘development’ stages, with each stage requiring advance expansion of the pad footprint. The
HLF will be constructed in six ‘pad development’ stages, with the pad foundation preparation, liner installation and leachate
collection piping developed as the footprint of the leach pad expands upslope to accommodate additional ore lifts. The duration for each
stacking stages ranges from two to four years. Approximately 210 million tonnes (Mt) of mined ore will be processed at the Heap Leach
Facility (HLF)
The initial HLF development (Stage 1)
will also include the complete development of the confining embankment and the events pond prior to commencing ore stacking and leaching.
Heap Leach Pad
The heap leach pad is located on a uniformly
sloping sidehill and has an approximate footprint area of 2.8 km2. The heap leach pad is designed to be operated predominantly
as a dry heap-leach facility with minimal leachate storage to occur behind the confining HLF embankment.
The heap leach pad will be developed
in stages by loading in successive lifts upslope from the platform developed within the in-heap pond area behind the HLF confining embankment.
This will provide initial stability and minimise initial capital costs. The pad will be developed in eight-metre lifts constructed at
repose bench face angles of approximately 1.4H:1V. Bench widths approximately nine metres wide will be left at the toe of each lift to
establish a final overall slope of 2.5H:1V. Intermittent wider benches will be constructed to limit the vertical height of the HLF along
its profile to a maximum of 121 m (crest to downstream toe).
The heap leach pad and confining embankment
foundation footprints will be cleared of vegetation, grubbed and the topsoil removed and stockpiled for use in reclamation. Frozen colluvial
soils and weathered bedrock (residual soils) will be excavated down to a competent, stable bedrock foundation. A 3.5 m excavation depth
has been estimated for foundation preparation to competent ground, based on site investigation date. Slopes in the heap leach pad area
will be re-graded to a maximum 3H:1V slope with a dozer (as required) for liner installation. Any ice-rich materials will not be suitable
for use as borrow materials for embankment construction, and therefore will be transported to local stockpile or the TMF impoundment.
Seepage and stability analyses were completed
along the critical sections of the HLF facility (i.e., ultimate stage, maximum embankment height). Design basis criteria and model results
are presented in the HLF Design Report (KP, 2022b - in progress).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 284 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Confining Embankment
The embankment will have a final crest
elevation of 1,114 masl and will be constructed with an upstream slope of 3H:1V and downstream slope of 2H:1V. The embankment will be
constructed from locally sourced rock and earth fill by placing the fill in lifts and compacting to a specified density. A 0.3 m thick
bedding sand layer will be placed over the upstream slope of the embankment in preparation for installation of the LLDPE double liner
system. The liner system anchored in a trench excavated along the crest of the embankment. A sloping leachate detection layer will also
be constructed along the upstream face of the embankment. All liners will be tied into their corresponding liner along the foundation
of the pad to provide a continuous seal zone.
Preparation of the embankment foundation
will be undertaken in the same manner as the foundation preparation for the Heap Leach pad and will involve stripping the topsoil and
excavating the underlying frozen colluvial and residual soils down to competent bedrock. The HLF confining embankment will require approximately
2.6 Mm3 of embankment fill materials for construction.
The HLF will provide approximately 245,000
m3 of in-heap storage (i.e., storage within the voids of the stacked mineralized material) behind the confining embankment
for storage of leachate solution and contact water, with appropriate freeboard for a design storm event. In the event that the storage
requirement is greater than the provided capacity, excess runoff will spill to the events pond downstream of the heap via the confining
embankment spillway. The spillway channel will be excavated in bedrock and terminates in the Events Pond.
Liner Systems
Two liner systems have been developed
for the Heap Leach pad, an engineered single liner design for the upper portion of the leach pad (above the in-heap leachate solution
storage elevation) and a composite double liner design for the lower portion of the leach pad which will potentially have leachate solution
storage.
The ‘Upper’, or single liner
system consists of the following components:
| · | 1 metre thick overliner (2nd stage crushed and screened ore) |
| · | 80 mil (2 mm) linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane, and |
| · | 0.3-metre-thick compacted low permeability soil liner. |
The ‘ponded’, or double liner
system is designed to be installed on the heap leach pad’s lower slopes which may experience hydraulic loading from in-heap solution
storage. The double liner system consists of the following components:
| · | 1 metre thick overliner (2nd stage crushed and screened ore) |
| · | 80 mil (2 mm) linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) primary geomembrane |
| · | 0.3-metre-thick compacted low permeability soil liner |
| · | 0.6-metre-thick compacted Leak Detection sand layer |
| · | Leak Detection and Recovery System (LDRS), and |
| · | 80 mil (2 mm) linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) secondary geomembrane. |
Development of the heap leach liner will
be constructed in six stages, with liner expansions proposed every two to four years to meet ore stacking requirements. A protective layer
approximately one metre thick of coarse crushed ore (from second stage crushing) will be placed over the entire liner system footprint
to protect the liner’s integrity from damage during ore placement.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 285 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The soil liner material may be sourced
from local suitable overburden (residual and colluvial soils) and weathered bedrock. The liner system will require approximately 0.9 Mm3
of earth fill and rockfill materials for construction. The total quantity of LLDPE liner required is approximately 2.9 km2,
approximately 285,000 m2 of which is for the ‘ponded’ area.
Leachate Solution Collection System
Collection and recovery of the pregnant
solution is undertaken by the Leachate Solution Collection System (LSCS) which works in conjunction with the heap leach liner, overliner,
and Leak Detection and Recovery System (LDRS). Leachate will be collected in the Collection Header pipes, which then flow into the Main
Header Collection pipes. The Main Header Collection pipes are positioned along the centre of the Heap Leach Pad and terminate at
the upstream toe of the confining embankment at the three Leachate Collection Sumps, located at the toe of the confining embankment.
The sumps consist of two sections, the
lower ‘collection zone’ and the upper zone. The lower zone consists of a three-metre-thick zone of clean screened gravel placed
around a perforated steel vertical riser pipe. The upper zone consists of a three-metre-thick zone of compacted crushed ore placed around
a non-perforated steel vertical riser pipe.
Leak Detection and Recovery System
The LDRS under the double lined area
consists of a 0.9-metre-thick sand layer which is embedded with CPT collection pipes. The LDRS is sandwiched between the primary and secondary
geomembrane layers in the ponded areas. The LDRS under the single lined area consists of a network of drainage ‘trenches’
which contain
perforated CPT collection pipes surrounded by drainage sand. The trenches are aligned underneath the ‘Collection Header’ and
‘Main Collection Header’ pipes which are part of the Leachate Collection system embedded in the above overliner layer. These
drainage trenches discharge into the LDRS layer underlying the double lined area in the lower heap leach portion. A single strip of geomembrane
liner underlies the LDRS collection trenches for the non-ponded (i.e., single lined) area.
Leakage recovered by the LDRS will be
conveyed into the LDRS sump at the toe of the confining embankment. A level-switch controlled submersible sump pump will transfer
the recovered solution up the embankment slope via a pipe installed within the LDRS sand layer and connect into the main solution recovery
line for processing. Monitoring of the leakage recovery will be undertaken through continuous monitoring of the pump hour records.
Events Pond
The Events Pond is designed to provide
additional storage for flood events exceeding the design storm event of the HLF in-heap pond, as well as functioning as a seepage collection
pond for leachate solution that may leak past the double composite liner system in the HLF in-heap pond area. The Events Pond will be
operated as a dry pond during normal operations to have the maximum capacity available for storage of excess HLF surface runoff from storm
events. Water collected in the Events Pond will be used to supplement the HLF water supply for irrigation. Water volumes exceeding the
Events Pond storage capacity will be conveyed to the TMF via the Events Pond Spillway.
The Events Pond will be constructed to
full size prior to commencing HLF operations. Construction of the Events Pond involves stripping of topsoil and excavation of 3.5 m of
unsuitable overburden beneath the embankment and ponding footprint. The Events Pond embankment will be constructed of locally sourced
earthfill and rockfill, with fine grained residual soils on the upstream face to provide a low permeability zone and an acceptable surface
for installation of a HDPE double liner system. The embankment is designed with a 2H:1V downstream slope and a 3H:1V upstream slope. The
embankment will be underlain with a 1 m thick drainage blanket layer to aid in maintaining unsaturated conditions in the embankment fill.
The events pond embankment and ponded area will require approximately 1.1 Mm3 of earthfill and rockfill materials for construction.
The total quantity of liner required for the events pond is approximately 55,000 m2.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 286 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Diversion and Collection Ditches
The ditches are designed to convey the
1 in 100-year 24-hour duration storm event. Lining and protection of the ditch channels from erosion and scouring is required for all
permanent ditches due to the steep ditch grades associated with the natural topography and the anticipated high runoff flowrates.
The water balance indicates that the
HLF will operate in a deficit condition, with makeup water sources required throughout the operation of the HLF.
| 18.8.5 | Instrumentation and Monitoring |
Geotechnical instrumentation will be
installed to monitor the performance of the HLF during the construction stage and throughout the life of the facility. The purpose of
the instrumentation will be to provide data to assess the stability of the heap leach pad and to evaluate the effectiveness and performance
of the overliner and foundation drains.
The following instrumentation and monitoring
are proposed:
| · | Piezometers will be installed to allow measurement of phreatic levels and pore water pressures within
the HLF embankments and foundations drain. |
| · | Surface water quality sampling at selected locations downstream of the HLF. |
| · | Installation of monitoring wells around the facility to monitor groundwater quality during operations
and at closure. These wells would be installed prior to development to obtain baseline information for comparative assessment. |
| · | Installation of a LDRS to monitor and recover any leakage through the liner systems within the heap leach
pad area and events pond. |
| · | Slope movement monuments and survey control points installed and monitored to ensure the integrity and
stability of the ore heap. |
| · | The installation of flow monitoring devices in diversion ditches and creeks to confirm design flows. |
| · | Review of thermistor data to confirm the thermal regime at the site. |
Details of the instrumentation and monitoring
plan will be developed in conjunction with the appropriate regulatory authorities. The instrumentation and monitoring plan will be summarized
in an Operations, Maintenance and Surveillance (OMS) Manual for the HLF.
| 18.8.6 | Closure and Reclamation |
The reclamation plan for the HLF envisages
the following actions:
| · | A rinse and drain-down period will occur to recover any final gold, and to remove or reduce residual cyanide
and dissolved metals that could migrate out of the ore. As required, the water will be treated to ensure that the cyanide concentration
meets the International Cyanide Management Code. |
| · | Pipework and mechanical systems (including irrigation system, conveyors, stackers, etc.) will be removed
for disposal. |
| · | The Event Pond will be reclaimed and may be used to establish a semi-passive treatment system if required. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 287 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | The HLF confining embankment, events pond embankment, perimeter toe berm, and diversion and collection
ditches will be levelled and regraded to a natural grade. |
| · | All exposed, erodible surfaces will be covered and revegetated with native species. |
The seepage collection ponds/sumps and
recycle pumps will be retained until monitoring results indicate that any seepage from the HLF is of suitable quality for discharge to
the open pit to aid flooding, to the TMF or direct release to downstream waters. The groundwater monitoring wells and all other geotechnical
instrumentation will be retained for use as long term monitoring devices.
Post-closure requirements will also include
inspections of the HLF and an on-going evaluation of water quality, flow rates and instrumentation records to confirm design assumptions
for closure.
Packaged sewage treatment plant systems
will accept and treat all sanitary wastewater.
No communications infrastructure exists
in the area of the site. The Project will develop communications infrastructure to meet construction and operations requirements.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 288 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 19 | Market Studies and Contracts |
No market studies were performed, and
no sales contracts are in place. The commodities involved in this project are commonly traded on the open market.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 289 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 20 | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact |
This section provides further details
on environmental studies conducted to date, the environmental assessment process, territorial and federal regulatory approvals required
to bring this property into production, and the status of First Nations’ consultation and agreements. A brief overview of the closure
concept and obligations is also provided.
| 20.1 | Environmental & Social Studies |
Numerous environmental studies have been
completed on the Casino property to support previous submissions to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB)
under the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act (YESAA). Environmental studies were conducted on terrain and terrain
hazards, water quality and hydrology, geochemistry, hydrogeology, air quality, noise, fish and aquatic resources, rare plants and vegetation,
and wildlife. Many of these studies were completed from 2012 through 2014, with bi-annual surface and groundwater monitoring and climate
monitoring programs on-going, and monthly water monitoring occurring since May 2021. Socio-economic studies have been conducted focused
on key socio-economic indicators. Figure 20-1 show the mine site and surrounding region. Figure 20-2 shows the mine site layout at the
start of mine operations, and Figure 20-3 shows the mine site layout at the end of mine operations.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 290 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 20-1: Regional Project Area
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 291 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 20-2: General Arrangement End
of Year 1
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 292 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 20-3: General Arrangement End
of Year 27
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 293 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 20.1.1 | Biophysical Setting |
20.1.1.1
Vegetation
The Casino Project area lies within the
Dawson Range of the Klondike Plateau Ecoregion, in the Boreal Cordillera Ecozone (Smith et al. 2004). The Project area is primarily located
within the boreal bioclimate zone, with areas of subalpine and alpine bioclimate zones occurring mainly in the western portion of the
Project area. The predominant ecosite types that occur in the Project study area include subalpine moist shrub, mixed wood forest, sparse
coniferous forest, tall shrub, dry broadleaf forest and coniferous forest (2013b).
Within the vegetation study area, nine
flora species were identified during the surveys in 2010 and 2012 as having conservation concern (EDI 2013b). Of these nine species, three
were on the Yukon Conservation Data Centre (YCDC) Track list and the remainder were on the Watch list (EDI 2013b).
20.1.1.2
Wildlife
The Project area overlaps with the Klaza
herd of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) year around, with parts of the herd’s annual range overlapping with
the proposed Freegold Road upgrade and extension. Moose are distributed throughout the wildlife study area with densities that are considered
low for the Yukon (EDI 2014).
Grizzly bear (Ursus arcto horribilis)
is a Federally-listed species of Special Concern, and is on the YCDC animal watch list (EDI 2014; YCDC 2019b). Grizzly bear and black
bear (Ursus americanus), and bear dens have been observed in proximity to the proposed Project footprint, including the Freegold
Road upgrade and extension (EDI 2014, 2020).
Furbearer species that have been detected
within the study area include wolves (Canis lupus), wolverine (Gulo gulo), lynx (Lynx canadensis), American marten
(Marten americana), and collard pika (Ochotona collaris), which is designated as a species of concern by COSEWIC (EDI 2014).
Three species of bat were observed during bat surveys (EDI 2018). Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and northern myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis) are two species identified that are on the YCDC track list (YCDC 2019a).
The Project area provides breeding habitat
for a variety of bird species. Field surveys confirmed 82 species within the study area. Bird species selected as key indicator species
include:
| · | Cliff nesting raptors, including peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), golden eagles (Aquila
chrysaotos) and gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus); |
| · | Species at risk, including horned grebe (Podiceps auratus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica),
bank swallow (Riparia riparia), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) and
short-eared owl (Asio flammeus); and |
| · | Various species of passerine birds and waterfowl (CMC 2014a). |
20.1.1.3
Fisheries & Aquatic Resources
The fisheries and aquatic resources study
area includes Britannia Creek and Casino Creek watersheds. There is a 2 km reach of Yukon River at the northern edge of the study
area. The southern portion of the Project area drains into Casino Creek, which flows south to Dip Creek and Yukon River via Klotassin
River, Donjek River and White Rivers (PECGI 2013).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 294 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Fisheries sampling has occurred in Britannia
Creek, Casino Creek, and Dip Creek watersheds, and have identified Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and slimy sculpin (Cottus
cognatus), that make up most of the total catch in all three watersheds. Low numbers of Burbot (Lota lota), round whitefish
(Prosopium cylindraceum), and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tsawytscha) were captured in Casino Creek, Dip Creek and Britannia
Creek watersheds, respectively (PECGI 2011a).
20.1.1.4
Hydrology and Surface Water Quality
The study area for hydrology and surface
water quality is Britannia Creek and Casino Creek watersheds, a 5-km reach of Dip Creek downstream from its confluence with Casino Creek,
several Dip Creek tributaries within the airstrip and airstrip access road footprint, and several watersheds along the Freegold Road corridor
(CMC 2014c).
Ten hydrometric monitoring stations have
been operated since 2008 throughout the Project area to record baseline hydrometric conditions upstream and downstream of the Project
infrastructure. In 2020 and 2021, hydrometric stations were re-developed with additional instrumentation and a monitoring program has
been developed that aligns with the water quality program and an extensive monitoring program will be implemented in Spring 2022.
Water Quality sampling has occurred since
2008 in the Casino Creek, Dip Creek, Britannia Creek, Yukon River, Sunshine Creek, and Klosoassin River watersheds, and were analyzed
for the full suite of physical parameters, anions, nutrients, and total and dissolved metals. Exceedances of the Canadian Council of Ministers
of the Environment (CCME) guidelines for protection of freshwater aquatic life have been observed for pH, total cyanide (CN) and total
metals, including: aluminum (Al), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), silver (Ag), uranium (U)
and zinc (Zn) (AECOM 2009; PECGI 2011a, 2011b, 2013). The number of exceedances was highest for aluminum, cadmium, copper, and Iron and
lowest for cyanide, mercury, and pH. Exceedances have been observed to be low in March in comparison to May, similar between July and
September and least in October, indicating a seasonal trend most likely directly related to hydrological factors such as spring freshet
and stream flow (AECOM 2009; PECGI 2011a, 2011b, 2013). Surface water quality monitoring is proposed to continue in 2022 to 2024.
20.1.1.5
Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality
Hydrogeological site investigation in
the summer of 2013 installed 11 monitoring wells at 6 locations. Data were collected at the site during six site visits in 2013 and 2014,
including continuous groundwater level and ground temperature monitoring, groundwater quality sampling, and re-development of select historic
monitoring wells (Knight Piésold Ltd. 2015). Monthly groundwater monitoring has continued since June 2021 continues to be tracked,
and quality assurance and quality control of this data is currently underway.
The Project is situated within a region
of discontinuous permafrost, which is inferred to be present at shallow depths on north-facing slopes and below organic soils in portions
of the Casino Creek valley, and generally absent, or deeper, on south-facing slopes. A surface and inferred groundwater flow divide bisects
the deposit area, directing surface water and groundwater either north towards Canadian Creek watershed or south and east towards Casino
Creek watershed. Groundwater is inferred to discharge to surface in creek valleys and sustain winter flows in Casino Creek and Canadian
Creek (Knight Piésold Ltd. 2013c). Groundwater elevations have been observed to be at the lowest in April and May immediately preceding
the spring freshet and are typically highest in August following the snowmelt and summer rainfall.
Groundwater chemistry is variable throughout
the Project area and has been characterized in terms of the proposed Open Pit area, the hillslope area, and the Casino Creek valley area
(Knight Piésold Ltd. 2013c). Groundwater samples from the proposed Open Pit area have been characterized as primarily calcium-sulphate
type and samples from the hillslope area were dominantly calcium-bicarbonate type. Samples from the Casino Creek valley were generally
dominated by calcium, bicarbonate, and sulphate in the upper valley, calcium magnesium, bicarbonate, and sulphate through the middle of
the proposed Tailings Management Facility (TMF) area, and calcium and bicarbonate in the area of the proposed TMF embankment (CMC 2014c).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 295 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
20.1.1.6
Sediment, Periphyton and Benthic Invertebrates
Aquatic surveys have included sampling
for sediment quality, periphyton communities and benthic invertebrate communities in Britannia Creek, Casino Creek, and Dip Creek watersheds.
Sediment samples were analyzed for physical parameters and total metals. Exceedances of the CCME Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG)
include total metals, including: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) (AECOM 2009; PECGI 2011a). Arsenic exceedances
throughout the study area are reflective of natural sources from weathered rocks and soils and are likely due to natural acid rock drainage
(ARD) in the groundwater near the ore body (CMC 2014c).
Periphyton and benthic invertebrate samples
within each watershed generally appear to be similar. However, the periphyton and benthic invertebrate communities in upper Casino Creek
appear to be affected by the water flowing into Casino Creek from Proctor Gulch. Water from Proctor Gulch intermittently flows underground
and interacts with the mineralized zone such that re-emerging water is highly acidic and has elevated metal concentrations. Further downstream
Casino Creek, biological communities show higher levels of density, diversity, and richness (PECGI 2011a). Monitoring for sediment quality,
periphyton communities and benthic invertebrate communities will continue in 2022 to 2024.
20.1.1.7
Air Quality
CMC is using the Government of Yukon
ambient air quality standards to protect human and ecological health as a benchmark for the Project. Historical work and new information
have highlighted air quality improvements for the Project. Information from the mining process, methods from feasibility study, and feasibility
study will be used to construct an Air Quality Model, which will include emissions from stockpiles. The metrological dataset is gathered
from a third party from wind fields over a 3-year period to determine dispersion of dust, metal concentrations in dust, and other contaminants.
The Air Quality Model will produce metal concentrations in ambient air and metal deposition in the landscape.
20.1.1.8
Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change
CMC will prepare a detailed understanding
of the Project’s carbon emissions and strategies to reduce and/or offset emissions during the full project lifecycle. Key emission
sources for the Project are the mining fleet and the power plant.
A study on the effects of climate change
on the project over the life of the project is being developed using current climate change scenarios for the region.
| 20.1.2 | Social and Community Setting |
The Project is located on Crown land
that is administered by the Government of Yukon. In 2013, a Socio-economic baseline report was produced, which focused on key socio-economic
indicators related to population and demographics, community well-being, employment and income, employability, infrastructure and services,
economic development and business sector, and cultural continuity (AMEC 2014).
20.1.2.1
Land Use
The Land Use study area is primarily
located within the Selkirk First Nations (SFN) and Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nations (LSCFN) Traditional Territory. There are a variety
of land use activities in the study area including: traditional and domestic use, parks and protected areas, hunting, trapping and guide
outfitting, fishing, forest use (firewood collection and gathering), recreation and tourism, mining and exploration activities, oil and
gas, water resources and licences, other land tenures, transportation and access, and utilities (CMC 2014b).
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 296 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Both the mine site and the Freegold Road
Extension are in the SFN Traditional Territory. The SFN and LSCFN have historically lived in the Project area. In addition to hunting,
trapping, and fishing activities SFN and LSCFN have traditionally and currently practiced a variety of traditional land uses, including
the collection of plants for food, medicine and construction of baskets, containers, etc. (CMC 2014b). The Project is also within the
asserted Traditional Territory of the White River First Nation.
Recreational hunting, guide outfitting
and trapping take place within the study area, and there are 11 registered trapline concessions (CMC 2014b).
There are no parks or protected areas,
campgrounds or picnic areas located within the study area. However, the general project area is known to be used for a variety of recreational
land uses (CMC 2014b).
The Project is located within the Whitehorse
Mining District and there are four different types of mining activities that occur within the Project area including: placer (gold), quartz
(hard rock), coal, and quarries for borrow source material. Most mining activities are in proximity to the existing Freegold Road and
the Freegold Road Extension (CMC 2014b).
20.1.2.2
Archaeology
Heritage resource impact assessments
have been completed for portions of the study area. Remaining areas where heritage resources impact assessments are recommended are summarized
in (Mooney, J. and Dale, J. 2014). The study identified:
| · | Seventeen (17) proposed borrow pits and approximately 7.45 km of right-of-way areas remain to be assessed; |
| · | Thirty-three (33) archaeological sites to be managed along the proposed Freegold Road upgrade; |
| · | Thirty-one (31) historical structures and resources to be managed along the Freegold Road; |
| · | Seventeen (17) archaeological sites to be managed near the mine site, the proposed airstrip, the road
to the airstrip, and the road to the Yukon River; |
| · | Sixteen (16) historic structures and resources to be managed near the mine site, the proposed airstrip,
the road to the airstrip , and the road to Yukon River; and |
| · | Ten (10) previously noted First Nation use sites along the Freegold Road (Mooney, J. and Dale, J. 2014). |
| 20.1.3 | Environmental Disclosure |
There are no known environmental issues
that would materially impact CMC ability to extract mineral resources or mineral reserves.
| 20.2 | Waste Management and Water Management |
This section presents the project mine
waste management and water management approaches, including geochemical characterization of tailings, waste rock and ore.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 297 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 20.2.1 | Geochemical Characterization |
20.2.1.1
Previous Testing
Extensive test work for static testing
and kinetic testing programs have been completed for the project. Since the original application, over 1,490 individual static test samples
have been completed and 50 kinetic tests were initiated. The kinetic tests are designed to replicate the waste storage conditions and
has provided a strong understanding of leaching potential for unsaturated and saturated conditions.
20.2.1.2
Waste Rock and Ore Characterization
Most of the waste rock and ore is classified
as potentially acid generating. The acid rock drainage and metal leaching (ARD/ML) properties varies between mineralization zones. Oxidized
Leach Cap (CAP) is fully oxidized with trace quantities of sulphide resulting in sulphate acidity. Supergene oxide (SOX) and sulphide
(SUS) zones are weathered, metal enriched rock, which generate sulphate and sulphide acidity. Some SOX and SUS zones contain carbonate
minerals that will initially buffer drainage pH. Hypogene (HYP) zone is unaltered fresh rock that produces sulphide acidity.
Highly weathered rock types (CAP and
SOX) containing sulphate acidity will be immediately acid generating. Saturated column results show that neutralization of these rock
types minimizes metal leaching potential under saturated conditions. Fresh rock types (SUS and HYP) will initially produce neutral pH
drainage and will only become acid generating over time. Sub-aqueous waste rock disposal will prevent HYP and SUS waste rock from becoming
acid generating. Saturated column studies indicate that a combination of precipitation and surface sorption reactions will attenuate peak
metal concentrations from waste rock in impoundment.
20.2.1.3
Tailings Characterization
There are two waste rock streams for
the tailings. One is a cleaner tailings and pyrite concentrate that has low neutralization potential, which means these materials are
to be disposed of directly into the pond or operating pond of the tailings management facilities (TMF). This potentially reactive material
accounts for approximately 24% of the overall tailings mass. The second, non-acid generating tailings that are cycloned to produce sand,
which will be used to build the embankment of the TMF.
| 20.2.2 | Waste Rock and Tailings Management |
The project will create waste rock from
mine development and tailings as a by-product of mineral processing. The Tailings Management Facility (TMF) will provide storage
for tailings and waste rock. The geochemical characteristics of the tailings produced in the milling mineralized material are predicted
to be approximately 24% PAG and 76% non-acid generating (NAG) tailings. Geochemical waste characterization studies have indicated that
most waste material is potentially acid generating (PAG) and/or metal leaching (ML). The TMF will store approximately 805 million tonnes
(Mt) of tailings and 615 Mt of potentially reactive waste rock and overburden.
PAG tailings will be stored in the PAG
Tailings Cell under saturated conditions to prevent acid generation. NAG tailings will be processed in the cyclone plant to produce sand
for construction of the TMF Main Dam. The NAG tailings cyclone underflow will be used for embankment and buttress construction. The NAG
tailings cyclone overflow will be thickened prior being discharged to the NAG Tailings Cell. The NAG Tailings Cell will primarily store
thickened cyclone sand plant overflow and NAG whole tailings from the mill during cyclone plant maintenance periods, as well as screening
losses from the tailings dewatering plant.
The waste rock and some overburden produced
be deposited into three waste storage areas (West Waste Dump, North Waste Dump and Divider Berm) in the TMF. The West Waste Dump (WWD)
will be constructed with NAG waste rock and overburden upstream from the NAG tailings deposit. The North Waste Dump (NWD) will be constructed
with PAG waste rock and overburden upstream from the PAG tailings deposit. The Divider Berm will separate the NAG and PAG tailings within
the TMF and be constructed of waste rock and over burden material. Dumps will be constructed several metres above tailings level to provide
a dry, stable placement surface, but will be submerged by tailings by the end of operation.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 298 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A low-grade ore stockpile proposed for
the headwaters of Canadian Creek once it has been cut off by the Open Pit. Approximately 60 million tonnes of overburden from the pit
will be stacked in Canadian Creek watershed instead of in the TMF to save it for reclamation.
Water management objectives at the Project
are to manage water in a manner that provides sufficient water to support ore processing, while minimizing the potential for storm flows
to cause damage to mine structures and for mining operations to cause adverse effects to downstream water quality. The strategies applied
to achieve these objectives are to keep non-contact water clean by diverting it around Project areas wherever possible, use the water
within the project area to the maximum practical extent and manage sediment mobilization and erosion through Best Management Practices
(BMP) before and during construction activities.
Groundwater and precipitation collected
in the open pit mine will be dewatered throughout mine life, with dewatering flows from the pit sump pumped to the mill for use in the
process plant. The open pit mine also intercepts Canadian Creek approximately mid-way through the mine life, which will be diverted into
the open pit mine and water used as process water. Following the cessation of mining, the dewatering system will be decommissioned and
the open pit mine will be allowed to fill with groundwater, precipitation, and runoff from the upstream catchments, including Canadian
Creek. The open pit will also receive water pumped from the HLF and TMF pond early in the closure phase. Ultimately, once the open pit
fills, it will discharge to the north end of the TMF. Refer to Figure 20-2 for mine site layout at the start of mine operations, and Figure
20-3 for mine site layout at the end of mine operations.
The TMF Starter Embankment will provide
a fresh water source for mill start-up water during pre-production during the initial years of operations. Subsequently, during on-going
construction of the Main Embankment, a phased dual-ditch system will route non-contact water around the TMF and contact water will be
collected in the Water Management Pond. An interim stage water management pond, sited immediately downstream of the Main Embankment footprint,
will be actively managed for the first ten years of operations, during early stages of embankment expansion. A final water management
pond, sited immediately downstream of the buttress footprint, will be actively managed from Year 10 to the end of operations. A pump station
will return the water from the water management pond back to the TMF. Supplemental booster pump stations will be required as the TMF embankment
height increases. Water reclaimed from the TMF consists of supernatant from the settled tailings and runoff from precipitation. Pipelines
will convey the reclaimed water to the settlement pond located upgradient of the mill and a water head tank upgradient of the cyclone
plant for use in the ongoing process plant and cyclone plant operations. Upon mine closure, the tailings and reclaim delivery systems,
cyclone plant and all pipelines, structures and equipment not required beyond mine closure will be dismantled and removed. Post-closure,
an overflow spillway and channel will discharge excess water accumulating within the TMF to the south, ultimately terminating at an erosion
protected plunge pool at the confluence of Brynelson Creek.
Initial water requirements for the gold
plant and oxide mineralized material heap leach operations will be met by pumping water retained behind a temporary cofferdam located
in the heap leach event pond. Diversion and runoff collection ditches will also be constructed at the HLF to intercept overland surface
runoff around the HLF pad and convey non-contact flows to the TMF and contact water flows to the Events Pond. The HLF Events Pond is situated
immediately down gradient of the HLF confining embankment, and the pond inflow is conveyed via the confining embankment spillway to the
TMF. The Events Pond will be operated as a dry pond during normal operations but will provide additional storage for flood events exceeding
the design storm event of the HLF in-heap pond, as well as a seepage collection pond for leachate solution that may leak past the double
composite liner system in the HLF in-heap pond area. Water collected in the Events Pond will be used to supplement the HLF water supply
for irrigation. Volumes exceeding the Events Pond storage capacity will be conveyed to the TMF via the Events Pond Spillway. At closure,
the Events Pond liner system will be removed and all water from the reclaimed HLF allowed to drain either to the TMF, or, if water quality
meets post-closure objectives and seepage is suitable, will be directly released to downstream waters.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 299 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A freshwater system will offset any operational
water deficit with water from the Yukon River. Fresh water will be collected in a riverbank caisson and radial well system (Ranney Well)
and pumped through an above ground insulated pipeline with booster stations. The freshwater pipeline will generally follow the road alignment
of the existing road that leads northwards from the mine facility to the Yukon River along Britannia Creek. The fresh water will also
be filtered and chlorinated to supply potable and fire water at the processing plant and residence camp, stored and distributed separately
from the process freshwater supply system.
Seepage from site infrastructure will
be controlled with a variety of seepage control and collection measures. Seepage from ore and topsoil stockpiles will be collected in
collection ditches constructed around the downstream footprint edge of each stockpile. These collection ditches will collect and convey
runoff from the stockpiles to ponds in topographic low points downstream of each stockpile which will be pumped to the TMF pond. Seepage
at the HLF will be controlled by a multi-layered system comprising a confining embankment, composite liner system, leak detection and
recovery systems, and perimeter berm with diversion and runoff collection ditches to intercept overland surface runoff around the HLF
pad and to convey non-contact water flows to the TMF, and contact water flows to the in-heap events pond. For the first two years, seepage
under the TMF will be limited by a grout curtain installed along the upstream toe of the Starter Embankment, together with a geomembrane
liner installed on the upstream face of the Starter embankment. A seepage collection system will collect and convey water away from
the Starter Embankment. During construction of the Main Embankment, an under-drain system and a surface ditch system will discharge into
a Water Management Pond downgradient of the Main Embankment. In the unlikely event that the Water Management System is found to not effectively
collect and recover seepage, it will be necessary to install additional seepage control provisions. Following the cessation of mining,
the seepage collection systems, collection ditches, and pump back systems will be removed once suitable water quality for direct release
is achieved.
On-going water quality monitoring will
be required to assess the effectiveness of the Water Management System including the installation of groundwater wells at suitable locations
downstream of site infrastructure. Flow monitoring devices will also be installed in diversion ditches and creeks to confirm design flows.
The groundwater monitoring wells and all other geotechnical instrumentation will be retained for use as long-term monitoring devices.
Post-closure requirements will also include scheduled inspections of remaining infrastructure (including the TMF) and will include an
on-going evaluation of water quality, flow rates and instrumentation records to confirm the design assumptions for closure.
The Project is designed to be operated
as a zero-discharge facility during operations. A water treatment facility will be included in the mine design as mitigation should the
water balance be exceeded during operations. The design and capacity will be developed as part of the detailed mine design.
Mining projects in the Yukon require
several permits and licences issued either by the Yukon Government or by the various departments of the Government of Canada. The primary
regulatory approvals are a Water Licence, issued under the Waters Act, and a Quartz Mining Licence, issued under the Quartz Mining Act.
Federal authorizations are required under the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Act, amongst others. In advance of licence applications,
mining projects require a screening report issued by YESAB. The environmental assessment and permitting requirements are further detailed
below.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 300 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 20.3.1 | Existing Assessments and Permits |
Exploration activities at mining projects
in Yukon are undertaken under a Mining Land Use approval, issued by Yukon Government, Department of Energy, Mines & Resources. Current
exploration at the Casino property is approved under Class 4 Quartz Mining Land Use Approval LQ00510, and Class 3 Quartz Mining Land Use
Approval LQ00320c. CMC recently underwent assessment through YESAB to combine these two approvals (YESAB project 2020-0083), and a decision
document approving this assessment was issued in September 2020. Other existing permits include Waste Management Permit 81-079.
Several key licenses/authorizations will
be required for this project including a Quartz Mining Licence, a Type A Water Licence, a Fisheries Act Authorization, and a Schedule
2 amendment under the Fisheries Act. A Quartz Mining Licence will be required and must adhere to the regulations of the Quartz
Mining Act particularly as per Section 135, issued and administered by the Yukon Government. Additionally, CMC will be required to
obtain a Type A Water Licence under the Waters Act for mine operations with use of water and deposit of waste, as well as considerations
of tailings creation and storage according to the project design. The Yukon Water Board would issue this licence and it would be administered
by the Yukon Government. In addition, CMC will require a Fisheries Act Authorization and a Schedule 2 amendment under the Metal and Diamond
Mining Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act because of the location of the tailings management facility in waters frequented
by fish. Environment and Climate Change Canada will be responsible for approving the Compensation Plan for the loss of fish habitat and
make the Schedule 2 amendment. Table 20-1 provides a summary of permit requirements for the Casino Mine.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 301 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 20-1: Summary of applicable
Legislation, Regulations and Regulatory Approvals for the Casino Mine
| Act |
Regulation |
Regulatory Approval |
Purpose |
| YESAA |
| Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, S.C. 2003, c.7 |
Assessable Activities, Exceptions and Executive
Committee Projects Regulations
Decision Body Time Periods and Consultation
Regulations |
Panel Report and Recommendation (issued by the
Panel of the Board)
Decision Document (issued by Yukon Government) |
Panel of the Board Review to assess the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Project prior to permitting. |
| Water License |
| Waters Act, SY 2003, c. 19 |
Waters Regulation, OIC 2003/58
(Schedule 7 Licensing Criteria for Quartz Mining
Undertakings) |
Water License Type A |
Direct water use of water for milling at a rate
of more than 100 tonnes of ore per day
Deposition of waste from milling at a rate of
more than 100 tonnes of ore per day
Construction of permanent flood control structures
Storage of water behind a dam with a maximum
height higher than 8 m and more than 60,000 m³ is stored |
| Quartz Mining License |
| Quartz Mining Act, SY 2003, c. 14 |
|
Quartz Mining License |
Development and operation of a quartz mine |
| Fisheries |
| Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 |
|
Section 35(2) Authorization |
To carry on a proposed work, undertaking, or activity causing serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery or to fish that support such a fishery. |
| Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations, SOR/2002-222 |
Schedule 2 Amendment
Authorization to deposit an effluent that contains
a deleterious substance |
Authorization for a tailings impoundment area
in fish habitat
Applies to mines that exceed an effluent flow
rate of 50 m3 per day, based on effluent deposited from all the final discharge points of the mine, and that deposit a deleterious
substance in any water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious
substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 302 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Act |
Regulation |
Regulatory Approval |
Purpose |
| Land Tenure/Land Use |
| Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, SY 2003, c. 17 |
Land Use Regulation, OIC 2003/51
|
Land Use Permit
|
Use of territorial lands, as defined in the
Act for the following:
Construction of a solid waste disposal facility
Storage and handling of petroleum products
Establishment and use of fuel caches of more
than 4,000 litres or any single container of more than 2,000 litres on Commissioner’s Land
Use of more than 50 kg of explosives on Commissioner’s
Land in any 30-day period
Temporary use or occupation of Commissioner’s
Land
Conduct of geotechnical studies
Construction of new road access
Construction of a new bridge crossing. |
| Territorial Lands Regulation, OIC 2003/50 |
Application for land lease or purchase |
Tenure for land lease or agreement of sale |
| Land Titles Act, SY 2002, c. 10 |
Land Titles Plans Regulation, OIC 2016/109
Land Titles General Regulation, OIC 2016/108 |
Registration of interest in land |
Title to land |
| Lands Act, RSY 2002, c. 132 |
Quarry Regulations, OIC 1983/205 |
Quarry Permit, Quarry Lease |
Removal of gravel/sand from a quarry on Yukon lands |
| Highways Act, RSY 2002, c. 108 |
Highways Regulation, OIC 2002/174 |
Permit under Highways Act, S. 7(2) |
Construction of new road access |
| Access Permit |
Constructing road access on highway right-of-way |
| Work in Right-of-Way Permit |
Perform work within highway right-of-way |
| Sign Permit |
Erect sign within highway right-of-way |
| Highways Act, RSY 2002, c. 108 |
|
License of Occupation |
Use of land within highway right-of-way |
| Forest Protection Act, RSY 2002, c. 94 |
Forest Protection Regulation (2003), OIC 2003/57 |
Burning Permit |
Burning refuse (wood) |
| Forest Resources Act, SY 2008, c.15 |
Forest Resources Regulation, OIC 2010/171 |
Forest Resources Permit |
Clearing of forest resources incidental to other activity (including mining, land use, road construction, FireSmart, work in the right-of-way, etc.) |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 303 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Act |
Regulation |
Regulatory Approval |
Purpose |
| Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 |
Migratory Birds Regulations, CRC, c. 1035 |
Conformance to Regulation |
Inadvertent destruction of nests and eggs due to forest clearing is called “incidental take”. |
| Construction/Building-Related |
| Building Standards Act, RSY 2002, c. 19 amended by RSY 2013, c. 3 |
|
Building Permit |
Construction of buildings outside of a municipality |
| Plumbing Permit |
Installation of plumbing outside of Whitehorse |
| Public Health and Safety Act, RSY 2002, C.176 |
Sewage Disposal Systems Regulation, OIC 1999/82 |
Permit to Install a Sewage Disposal System |
Installation of an on-site sewage disposal system |
| Regulations Respecting the Sanitation of Camps in the Yukon Territory, OIC 2009/187 |
During operation of the camp, provision of information to the Health Officer in respect of the Regulations, as required. |
Maintenance of a camp in a sanitary condition |
| Drinking Water Regulation, OIC 2007/139 |
Approval to construction a large public drinking
water system
Permit to operate a large public drinking water
system |
Construction, installation, modification, and
operation of a drinking water system with
15 or more service connections to a piped distribution
system; or
Five or more delivery sites on a trucked distribution
system,
and includes the water source, any infrastructure
(e.g., a well, pumphouse, water treatment plant, storage tank, reservoir, water delivery truck, or a piped or trucked distribution system). |
| Eating and Drinking Places Regulation, CO 1961/001 |
Permit to Operate a Food Premise |
Operation of a food premises |
| Electrical Protection Act, RSY 2002, c. 65 |
Electrical Protection Regulation, 1992, OIC
1992/017
Canadian Electrical Code, C22.1-15 (23rd
edition) |
Electric Permit |
Electrical work |
| Gas Burning Devices Act, RSY 2002, c. 101 |
Gas Regulations, OIC 1998/213 |
Gas Installation Permit |
Gas installation or modification |
|
Environment Act, RSY 2002, c. 76
|
Air Emission Regulations, OIC 1998/207
|
Air Emissions Permit |
Operation of fuel burning equipment greater than 5 Million British thermal units per hour (Mbtu/hr) |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 304 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Act |
Regulation |
Regulatory Approval |
Purpose |
| Boiler and Pressure Vessels Act, RSY 2002, c. 16 |
Design, Construction and Installation of Boilers and Pressure Vessels Regulations, OIC 1980/303 |
Registration |
Installation of power boilers over 10 kW, heating boilers over 20 kW, pressure vessels and piping systems |
| Contaminants and Waste |
|
Environment Act, RSY 2002, c. 76
|
Solid Waste Regulations, OIC 2000/11 |
Solid Waste Management Permit |
Solid waste disposal facility
Operation of solid waste incinerator |
|
Special Waste Regulations, OIC 1995/47
|
Special Waste Permit
Waste Manifest |
Handling, disposal, generation, or storage of
special (hazardous) waste
Transportation of dangerous goods / waste |
| Contaminated Sites Regulation, OIC 2002/171 |
Land Treatment Facility Permit |
Operation of a land treatment facility for contaminated soils |
| Relocation Permit |
Relocation of contaminated material |
| Air Emission Regulations, OIC 1998/207 |
Air Emissions Permit |
Release of air pollutants (i.e., incinerator,
diesel, generators)
Operation of solid waste incinerator |
| Ozone Depleting Substances and Other Halocarbon Regulation, OIC 2000/127 |
Ozone Depleting Substances and Other Halocarbons Permit |
Servicing or installation of equipment containing
ozone depleting substances (e.g., refrigeration equipment)
Purchasing, handling, and services in/of ozone
depleting substances equipment
Use of ozone depleting substances and equipment |
|
Environment Act, RSY 2002, c. 76
|
Storage Tank Regulations, OIC 1996/194
|
Application for Operation, Closure, Abandonment,
or Renovations to Storage Tanks
Above-Ground Storage Tank Permit |
Storage and handling of petroleum products
Use of storage tanks containing petroleum and
allied petroleum products |
| Navigation Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22 |
Navigable Waters Works Regulations, CRC, c. 1232 |
Section 6(4) Approval to construct, place, alter, repair, rebuild, remove, or decommission a work in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water that is listed in the Schedule to the Act |
Water withdrawal from the Yukon River |
| Explosives |
| Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, SY 2003, c. 17 |
Land Use Regulation, OIC 2003/51
|
Land Use Permit |
Use of more than 50 kg of explosives on Commissioner’s land in any 30-day period |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 305 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Act |
Regulation |
Regulatory Approval |
Purpose |
| Explosives Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17 |
Explosives Regulations, 2013 SOR/2013-211 |
Explosives Magazine Storage and Use Permit for Mining Purposes |
Explosives storage |
| ANFO Permit |
Manufacture of ANFO |
| Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSY 2002, c. 159 |
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, OIC 1986/164 |
Notification to Director OHS |
Trenching excavations in excess of 6 m |
| Underground and Surface Authorization to Conduct Blasting in Yukon |
Blasting – underground or surface |
| Temporary Blaster’s Permit |
Temporary blasting |
| Transportation |
| Highways Act, RSY 2002, c. 108 |
Bulk Commodity Haul Regulations, OIC 1994/175 |
Bulk Commodity Agreement |
Bulk commodity hauling |
| Highways Regulation, OIC 2002/174 |
Over-dimensional or Over-weight Vehicle Permits |
Oversize trucking |
| Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, S.C. 1992, c.34 |
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations,
SOR/2001-286
Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste
Regulations, SOR/2002-301 |
There is no permit for transporting dangerous goods, but the driver must have the correct training, documentation and load security as required by Transport Canada. The Carrier must have a minimum of $2,000,000 liability coverage. |
Transport of dangerous goods/waste |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 306 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 20.3.3 | Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Process |
Larger quartz mining projects (i.e.,
those that begin mining as opposed to just exploration activities) are typically categorized as assessable activities under the Assessable
Activities, Exceptions and Executive Committee Projects Regulations (SOR/2005-379) and require an Executive Committee screening. Upon
completion of the assessment, YESAB issues a screening report and a recommendation, which is sent to federal, territorial and/or First
Nation governments who act as Decision Bodies. The recommendation will include one of four options. YESAB will recommend that the project:
| · | Be allowed to proceed with terms and conditions; |
| · | The Executive Committee can recommend that the project be required to undergo a review by a Panel of the
Board. |
The Decision Body for the assessment
will be a regulating body or authority. Decision Bodies can be federal, territorial or First Nation governments and agencies that regulate
and permit the proposed activity. The Decision Body will issue a Decision Document that accepts, varies, or rejects the recommendation.
Once the Decision Document has been issued, an agency can issue authorizations or permits in accordance with their process.
A Project Proposal for the Casino Mine
was submitted to the executive committee of the YESAB in January 2014 and underwent several rounds of adequacy review information requests
from 2014 through 2016. On February 18, 2016, the Executive Committee determined that the Casino Mine Project requires a Panel Review,
the highest level of environmental and socio-economic assessment under YESAA. A Panel Review is an assessment process by which a Panel
of the Board (comprised of one YESAB board member nominated by the Council of Yukon First Nations, and two YESAB board members nominated
by the territorial or federal governments) conducts technical analysis of an Environmental and Socio-economic Effects Statement submitted
by CMC, followed by public hearings. The Panel of the Board then issues their recommendations (similar to the other levels of assessment
under YESAA) to the relevant Decision Body(s), which can be federal, territorial and/or First Nation governments. The Decision Body(s)
will then decide whether to accept, reject or vary the recommendation of YESAB and issue a Decision Document. The Decision body has 60
days to issue a decision document, or 45 days in which to refer the recommendations back to the Panel of the Board for reconsideration.
Regulatory permitting would follow a positive decision document being issued.
Guidelines for the Environmental and
Socio-economic Effects Statement were issued by YESAB on June 20, 2016. CMC is preparing the Environmental and Socio-economic Effects
Statement in accordance with those guidelines.
| 20.4 | First Nations and Community Engagement |
In Yukon, assessment and regulatory processes
provide opportunities for First Nation and community participation. Since 2008, CMC has been consulting, engaging, and sharing information
with First Nations, local communities, Yukon government and federal agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), and individuals. The
2016 Environmental and Socio-economic Effects (ESE) Statement Guidelines issued to CMC outline the information and consultation requirements
related to First Nations and community engagement.
The Project has components that are located
within the Traditional Territories of three self-governing Yukon First Nations: Selkirk First Nation, Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation,
and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in. These First Nations each have a signed Final Agreement (also referred to as a Land Claim
or Modern-Day Treaty) which outlines and defines their respective Settlement Land, rights, and financial compensation.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 307 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Kluane First Nation and White River First
Nation have also been identified by the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board (YESAB) as being potentially affected
by the Project. Kluane First Nation has a signed Final Agreement. While Kluane First Nation Traditional Territory is downstream of the
Project, no Project components overlap the First Nation’s Traditional Territory. White River First Nation has not entered into a
land claim or a self-government agreement, as a result White River First Nation is still governed under the Federal Indian Act. White
River First Nation has an asserted Traditional Territory boundary that encompasses the entire Project footprint, and a large proportion
of the Freegold Road.
CMC has signed agreements with Selkirk
First Nation, Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, which provided funding for participation
in the Executive Committee review of the Project Proposal. Agreements were also reached with Selkirk First Nation, Tr’ondëk
Hwëch’in, and White River First Nation for the funding of nation-specific Traditional Land Use studies. As a result, Selkirk
First Nation prepared a comprehensive Traditional Land Use Study in 2017, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in in 2018, and White River
First Nation in 2018.
Subsequent updated agreements will be
required to facilitate future participation in the preparation of the Environmental and Socio-economic Effects Statement, as well as the
Panel Review process and/or in any other processes to be conducted under the proposed mining project. CMC is in regular communication
with all five First Nations. CMC is planning to continue their ongoing, regular consultation and engagement with each First Nation’s
leadership and technical teams as the proposed Project continues to advance. This includes additional engagement about (but not limited
to) past, present and future land use.
| 20.5 | Mine Closure and Reclamation |
A conceptual reclamation and closure
plan (RCP) will be submitted with the Environmental and Socio-economic Effects Statement. A detailed RCP will be submitted as part
of the application for a Quartz Mining License. The RCP will include a liability estimate for reclaiming and closing the mine. The
RCP will demonstrate how CMC has considered and addressed the expectations and concerns throughout the mine planning process. Over
the life of the mine, successive iterations of the plan may be expected every two years, each iteration providing more detail and greater
certainty regarding the sequence of events to occur during reclamation and closure. The Yukon Government will require the company to post
security for this project. Both the Yukon Waters Act and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act have provisions for security to be held by
government.
| 20.5.1 | Closure Plan, Cost Estimate and Financial Assurance |
The conceptual mine closure occurs over
four phases: operational closure, post-mining closure, active closure, and post-closure. Activities of each stage are outlined in Table
20-2.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 308 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 20-2: Proposed mine closure
phases and activities for the Project
| Closure
Phase |
Activities |
| Operational Closure |
As and when each pit, TMF, waste rock storage facility (WRSF) and stages of the heap leach facility (HLF) are decommissioned they will be closed. |
| Post Mining Closure |
Closure activities relating to terminating the mining operation, dismantling infrastructure, and reclamation. |
| Active Closure |
Maintenance, monitoring, and closure of remaining facilities |
| Post-Closure |
Monitoring only of mine closure and reclamation
activities including the following:
·
Heap leach rinsing, re-slopping, and capping;
·
Managing hazardous waste;
·
Dismantling and disposing of all structures and equipment;
·
Landfilling all inert waste, including equipment drained of all
oils and hazardous materials;
·
Transporting all hazardous waste from the Project site;
·
Disposing all liners and pipelines;
·
Collecting and treating all contaminated soils;
·
Re-contouring the site areas to provide positive drainage; and
·
Scarifying, placement of re-vegetation layer and seeding of disturbed
surfaces. |
Current proposed mine closure and reclamation
means are described in Table 20-3, however, alternatives are being considered and plans are to be finalized.
Table 20-3: Proposed reclamation and
closure of mine components
| Mine
Component |
Current
proposed reclamation and closure means |
| Open Pit |
Open pit to be flooded and overflow directed to tailings management facility. |
| Ore Stockpiles |
Any remaining Low-Grade Ore to be placed in open pit below flood elevation and remaining stockpile footprints will be graded, covered, and revegetated. |
| Process Facility and Infrastructure |
All infrastructure to be removed or cut to surface. Materials will be appropriately disposed of, and disturbed areas will be covered with topsoil and revegetated. |
| Heap Leach Facility |
Heap detoxified and rinsed; drained down water will be treated then pumped to open pit; heap resurfaced to stable slope, covered with low permeability cover, and revegetated. |
| Tailings Management Facility (TMF) |
Development of a stable cover system. Semi-passive water treatment system(s) will be constructed if required to treat the TMF water including any water conveyed from other mine features such as the flooded open pit or HLF prior to discharging via a spillway, TMF closure spillway constructed for treated surface water discharge. |
| Airstrip and Site Access Roads |
To be maintained for inspection and monitoring during closure. |
| Freegold Road |
Extension decommissioned following completion of mining and active closure activities; public portion remains open. |
Environmental monitoring will provide important
indicators of the successful closure of the Project. A final post closure monitoring program will be compliant with the applicable guidelines
and regulations. The post closure monitoring program will be implemented to ensure that the reclamation measures remain effective and
continue to provide a high level of protection for the public and the environment.
The following assumptions were used to
build up the closure cost estimate:
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 309 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Mobile equipment required for closure was assumed to be rental or third-party equipment; |
| · | Labor was assumed to be provided by the owner using fully burdened labor rates; |
| · | Unit cost estimates were based on the rental equipment fleet; and |
| · | No salvage recover was included in the closure cost estimate. |
Casino Mining Corporation will provide
financial security for the anticipated closure cost for the Casino mine. The Yukon Government currently holds $672 in security for
the Casino property. The Feasibility Study will include a provisional sum of $300 million for project closure. As part of the ongoing
permitting process an estimate with supporting details will be provided in the Water License and Quartz Mine License applications. The
estimate will present the ultimate cost at the end of mine life, and the amount at selected periods through the mine life. CMC will update
the estimate and security provisions regularly throughout the mine life.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 310 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 21 | Capital and Operating costs |
| 21.1.1 | Initial Capital Cost |
Table 21-1 summarizes the initial capital
costs.
Table 21-1: Initial Capital Cost Summary
| Cost Item |
Total (C$M) |
| Process Plant and Infrastructure |
|
| Project Directs including freight |
2,116 |
| Project Indirects |
431 |
| Contingency |
369 |
| Subtotal |
2,916 |
| Mine |
|
| Mine Equipment |
433 |
| Mine Preproduction |
228 |
| Subtotal |
661 |
| |
|
| Owner's Costs |
41 |
| |
|
| Total |
3,617 |
| 21.1.2 | Basis of Process Plant and Infrastructure Capital Cost Estimate |
In general, M3 based this capital cost
estimate on its knowledge and experience of similar types of facilities and work in similar locations. To assist in the estimating, M3
used quantity estimates, and in some cases, costs supplied by specialist sub-consultants, such as the following:
- Associated Engineering (AE): Main access road design and
costing from Carmacks to site.
- Knight Piésold (KP): Quantities, capital costs,
and sustaining capital costs associated with the Heap Leach Facility, and the Tailing Management Facility.
- Independent Mining Consultants (IMC): Mine capital and
operating costs.
“Initial Capital” is defined
as all capital costs through to the end of construction or the end of Year 1 of the mine life. Capital costs predicted for later years
are carried as sustaining capital in the financial model.
All costs 4th quarter 2021
Canadian dollars except as noted otherwise. Canadian to US exchange rate used is C$1.25 = US$1.00.
The capital costs are based on this project
being executed by experienced EPCM contractor(s) in the hard rock mining industry with a recent record of bringing projects on budget
or under budget. It is assumed that at least two sufficiently sized self-performing local contractors are in place for all trades, such
as civil, concrete, steel, architectural, mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and controls, and process piping. Certain contractors
will have multiple trade capabilities.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 311 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 21.1.2.2 | Exclusions and Qualifications |
This capital cost estimate excludes the
following items:
- Future escalation.
- The cost of all prior and future studies.
- Start-up and initial operating expenses subsequent to
Owner’s acceptance of the plant ready to accept feed are excluded.
- Future foreign currency exchange variation.
- The cost to provide insurance coverage for the duration
of the project.
- Environmental and ecological considerations.
This
capital cost estimate depends on the following qualifications:
- Environmental permits and licenses required to operate
the facilities are obtained in a timely manner.
- Unfettered access to the project site is assured for the
duration of the project development and operation.
Contingency is a cost that statistically
will occur based on historical data. The term is not used to cover changes in scope, errors, or lack of sufficient information to meet
a desired accuracy range. Contingency is used to cover items of cost which fall within the scope of work but are not known or sufficiently
detailed at the time that the estimate is developed. A 15% contingency was applied to the process plant and infrastructure direct and
indirect costs.
Documents developed for this Feasibility
Study include:
| · | Major equipment data sheets |
| · | Civil earthworks and grading drawings |
| · | Process and Instrumentation Diagrams (PIDs) |
| · | Freshwater supply and yard piping drawings |
| · | Electrical one-line diagrams |
| · | Site power distribution drawings |
| · | Control system architecture drawings |
| 21.1.2.5 | Construction Labor |
Burdened construction labor rates used
in the process plant and infrastructure capital cost estimate are shown in Table 21-2. The rates were provided in Q4 2021 by a BC industrial
contractor experienced in the scope and scale of the Project. The work schedule considers a 70-hour work week with 10 hours per day at
7 days per week and a cycle of 21 working days and 10 days off.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 312 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-2: Burdened Labor Rates
| Trade |
Labor Rate (C$/ hour) |
| Civil Work |
$122.67 |
| Concrete |
$134.12 |
| Architectural |
$135.30 |
| Structural Steel |
$134.12 |
| Equipment Installation |
$135.30 |
| Piping |
$135.30 |
| Electrical |
$129.72 |
| Instrumentation |
$129.72 |
Civil earthwork quantities were taken
off from a site wide Civil 3D cut and fill analysis and site civil earthwork grading drawings. It is assumed that the fist 5 metres of
excavation is rippable rock and deeper excavations require blasting. Major cut earthworks for the process plant pad and airstrip are costed
based on utilizing an early mobilized mining equipment fleet, priced by IMC.
Civil earthwork quantities and unit rates
for the Heap Leach Facility and Tailing Management Facility were provided by Knight Piesold.
The 132km main access gravel road to
site was designed and costed by Associated Engineering. It is assumed that 30% of the cost will be borne by the Yukon government under
the Yukon Resource Gateway Program.
A quality assurance testing allowance
of 2% on all civil costs is included.
A survey allowance of 1% on all civil
costs is included.
Concrete quantities were developed from
3D modelling and the general arrangement drawings.
In April 2022, unit rates including breakdown
of materials, labor and construction equipment were provided by a BC industrial contractor experienced in the scope and scale of the Project.
A quality assurance testing allowance
of 2% on all concrete costs is included.
A survey allowance of 1% on all concrete
costs is included.
Structural steel quantities were developed
from the general arrangement drawings.
Fabricated steel was quoted. Offshore
pricing was used for the fabrication of light, medium, and heavy steel.
In April 2022, steel erection rates were
provided by a BC industrial contractor experienced in the scope and scale of the Project.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 313 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
A quality assurance testing allowance
of 2% on all steel costs is included.
A survey allowance of 1% on all steel
costs is included.
Takeoffs have been made for mechanical
steel including platework, abrasion resistant liners, etc. based on the general arrangement drawings, equipment list and experience with
similar installations.
| 21.1.3.5 | Mechanical Equipment |
M3 solicited prices for the major equipment
depicted on the Flow Sheets and the Equipment Register from qualified suppliers. Budgetary quotes were received in Q4 2021 for the following
major mechanical equipment:
| · | Diesel Generators (Q1 2021) |
| · | Lime Storage and Slaking Package |
| · | Power Plant - equipment and bulk materials |
| · | Pumps – Process and Freshwater Supply |
| · | SAG & Ball Mills and Liner Handler |
Pricing sources for all mechanical equipment
in this estimate were as follows:
| · | Approximately 95% (by value) budgetary quotes |
| · | Approximately 5% (by value) from M3 historical data for similarly sized equipment |
Installation labor hours for the SAG and
ball mills were provided by FLSmidth. Installation labor hours for the gas turbine power plant was provided by Siemens. Remaining equipment
installation labor hours are based on RS Means and M3 in-house data.
Ancillary facilities costs are based
on pre-engineered building quotes. Process plant roofing and siding quantities were developed from the general arrangement drawings and
priced based on RS Means.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 314 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Process plant piping MTOs are based on
the PIDs and general arrangement drawings. Pipe material and installation labor hours are priced based on RS Means.
Yard major overland piping MTOs were
based on yard piping drawings with pipe material quoted. Installation labor hours based on RS Means and M3 in house data.
A small-bore pipe allowance of 15% of
all process area piping costs is included.
A quality assurance testing allowance
of 2% on all piping costs is included.
Electrical MTOs are based on the electrical
single line diagrams and site distribution drawings. All major equipment was quoted including E houses, gearless drives, medium voltage
motors and large voltage motors. Materials and installation labor hours are priced based on RS Means.
An electrical miscellaneous allowance
of 10% of labor and materials costs is included.
A commissioning assistance allowance
of 2% on all electrical costs is included.
A start-up assistance allowance of 1%
on all electrical costs is included.
A quality assurance testing allowance
of 2% on all electrical costs is included.
Instrumentation MTOs are based on the
PIDs drawings. Instruments, material, and installation pricing are based on M3 historical data.
A commissioning assistance allowance
of 2% on all instrumentation costs is included.
A start-up assistance allowance of 1%
on all instrumentation costs is included.
A software and PLC programming allowance
of 0.2% on project direct costs is included.
| 21.1.3.10 | Capital and Commissioning Spares |
Capital Spare parts are included at 2%
of Plant Equipment Costs. Commissioning spares are also included at 0.5% of Plant Equipment Costs.
Freight is 9% of equipment and materials
based on a Q2 2022 logistics evaluation.
| 21.1.4 | Process Plant and Infrastructure Indirect Costs |
Indirect costs include:
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 315 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Camp construction and operating costs |
| · | Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management |
The estimated mine capital cost includes
the following items:
| · | Mine preproduction development expense |
The estimated cost of the following mining
facilities was developed by others and is included in the infrastructure capital budget:
| · | The mine shop and warehouse |
| · | Fuel and lubricant storage facilities |
| · | Explosive storage facilities |
Table 21-3 summarizes the mine capital
cost by category for initial and sustaining capital. The initial capital period is considered to be the four-year period from Years -3
through Year 1, as these are the years of significant capital build-up.
Table 21-3: Mining Capital –
Mine Equipment and Mine Development (C$ x 1000)
| Category |
Initial Capital by Time Period |
Initial
Capital |
Sustaining
Capital |
Total
Capital |
| Yr -3 |
Yr -2 |
Yr -1 |
Year 1 |
| Major Equipment |
64,926 |
81,881 |
52,804 |
156,576 |
356,188 |
139,961 |
496,149 |
| Support Equipment @ |
15.00% |
9,739 |
12,282 |
7,921 |
23,486 |
53,428 |
20,994 |
74,422 |
| Initial Spare Parts @ |
0.00% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Shop Tools @ |
0.00% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Equipment Subtotal |
74,665 |
94,164 |
60,725 |
180,062 |
409,616 |
160,955 |
570,571 |
| Equipment Contingency @ |
10.0% |
7,466 |
9,416 |
6,072 |
0 |
22,955 |
0 |
22,955 |
| Mine Development |
34,184 |
70,206 |
123,636 |
0 |
228,026 |
0 |
228,026 |
| TOTAL MINE CAPITAL |
116,315 |
173,786 |
190,434 |
180,062 |
660,597 |
160,955 |
821,553 |
| Exclusions: Mine shop and warehouse, fuel and lubricant storage, explosives storage, and offices. |
Mine preproduction development of
C$228.0 million is based on the estimated mine operating costs during the preproduction period. The cost estimate is based on owner operating
costs with large equipment plus a contingency to provide additional allowance for additional road construction or other site preparation
and subcontracting portions of the mining, etc. Table 21-4 shows the components of the cost during mine development by year. Total preproduction
development is estimated as 75.0 million tonnes, corresponding to a unit rate of C$3.04 per tonne.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 316 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-4: Mine Development Direct
Costs Plus Contingency (C$ x 1000)
| Item |
Year -3 |
Year -2 |
Year -1 |
Total |
| Owner Operating Cost – Large Equipment |
27,347 |
61,049 |
112,396 |
200,792 |
| Mine Development Contingency |
6,837 |
9,157 |
11,240 |
27,234 |
| Total Mine Development Cost |
34,184 |
70,206 |
123,636 |
228,026 |
| % Contingency |
25% |
15% |
10% |
13.6% |
Costs Included in Estimate
Owner’s costs prior to the start
of project engineering and construction are deemed sunk and not included in this estimate. Owner’s costs incurred during the project
development include but are not limited to:
- First fills and consumables
- Owner’s On-Site team
- Consultants other than EPCM
- Shop tools & furnishings, special
tools
- Office equipment, furniture, and hardware
- General supplies and safety equipment
- Temporary Offices
| 21.2 | Sustaining Capital Costs |
Project sustaining capital costs are
capital costs incurred during operations and are included in LOM totals shown in Table 21-5 below. Mining capital includes equipment overhauls
and replacements. The Tailings Management Facility capital includes earthworks to raise the embankment per annum. The Process Plant capital
includes mobile equipment replacements every 7 years and heap leach facility expansions.
Table 21-5: LOM Sustaining Capital
Costs
| |
Total (C$M) |
| Mine |
161 |
| Tailings Management Facility |
326 |
| Process Plant (includes Heap Leach) |
264 |
| Total |
751 |
The operating costs for the Casino project
are comprised of three components; mining, concentrator to process the sulphide mineral reserve and heap leach to process the oxide mineral
reserve. The mining costs per tonne are shown in Table 21-6 below.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 317 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-6: Mining Cost
| Area |
LOM Cost
(CAD$000's) |
CAD$/mt
(as noted) |
| Mining cost - Total |
$5,212,265 |
|
| Mining cost per tonne (all material moved) |
|
$2.30 |
| Mining cost per tonne (concentrator + heap leach ore) |
|
$3.65 |
| Mining cost per tonne (concentrator ore only) |
|
$4.28 |
Operating costs for the concentrator are
shown in Table 21-7 below. Note that the $/tonne cost is calculated using the material processed through the concentrator over the life
of the mine.
Table 21-7: Concentrator Cost
| Area |
LoM Cost
(CAD$000s) |
CAD$/mt
mill ore |
| Concentrator (mill) |
$7,811,035 |
$6.42 |
| General & Administrative |
$564,011 |
$0.46 |
| Total |
$8,375,047 |
$6.88 |
Heap leach operating costs are shown in
Table 21-8 below. Note that the $/tonne cost is calculated using the material processed through the heap leach over the life of the mine.
Table 21-8: Heap Leach Cost
| Area |
LoM Cost
(CAD$000s) |
CAD$/mt
heap leach ore |
| Heap Leach |
$405,413 |
$1.93 |
| ADR/SART |
$1,006,778 |
$4.80 |
| Total |
$1,412,192 |
$6.73 |
Life of mine (LoM) operating cost is $11.16
per tonne of sulphide mineral reserve (concentrator), which includes the mining, and general and administrative costs for the mine. The
LoM operating cost is $6.73 per tonne of processed oxide mineral reserve (heap leach).
Process operating costs were determined
on a year-by-year basis. Table 21-9 below outlines costs for Year 2 only for illustration purposes. They are based on an annual mill mineral
reserve tonnage of 47.0 million tonnes that will produce approximately 478,000 tonnes of copper concentrates and 16,000 tonnes of molybdenum
concentrates. The heap leach plant costs are based on gold mineral reserve processed of 9.13 million tonnes and production of approximately
76,000 ounces of gold, 158,000 ounces of silver, and 1,000 tonnes of copper precipitates.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 318 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-9: Operating Cost –
Mine Site Cost Summary
| Concentrator Processing Units Base Rate (tonnes/year mineral reserve) |
47,082,000 |
|
| Heap Leach Processing Units Base Rate (tonnes/year mineral reserve) |
9,125,000 |
|
| Total Tonnes Mined |
99,999,000 |
|
| |
Year 2 |
| |
Cost (C$) |
C$/tonne |
| Mining Operations |
|
|
| Drilling |
$16,220,519 |
$0.34 |
| Blasting |
$32,604,850 |
$0.69 |
| Loading |
$25,422,385 |
$0.54 |
| Hauling |
$92,314,891 |
$1.96 |
| Roads and Dumps |
$24,893,798 |
$0.53 |
| Mine Services |
$13,469,925 |
$0.29 |
| Mine Administration |
$7,449,425 |
$0.16 |
| Subtotal Mining |
$212,375,793 |
$4.51 |
|
Processing Operations
Concentrator |
|
|
| Primary Crushing & Stockpile Feed |
$16,094,186 |
$0.34 |
| Grinding, Classification & Pebble Crushing |
$165,382,234 |
$3.51 |
| Flotation & Regrind |
$75,016,079 |
$1.59 |
| Concentrate Thickening/Filtration |
$6,064,260 |
$0.13 |
| Tailings Dewatering & Disposal |
$37,237,452 |
$0.79 |
| Fresh Water/Plant Water |
$4,224,839 |
$0.09 |
| Flotation Reagents |
$2,021,930 |
$0.04 |
| Ancillary Services |
$4,658,431 |
$0.10 |
| Subtotal Concentrator |
$310,699,410 |
$6.60 |
| Supporting Facilities |
|
|
| Laboratory |
$2,571,221 |
$0.05 |
| General and Administrative |
$19,753,485 |
$0.41 |
| Subtotal Supporting Facilities |
$22,324,707 |
$0.46 |
| Total Mill Mineral Reserve Cost |
$545,399,909 |
$11.58 |
| Heap Leach |
|
C$/tonne Heap Leach |
| Heap Leach - Gold Mineral Reserve |
$17,850,228 |
$1.96 |
| ADR/SART - Gold Mineral Reserve |
$44,263,050 |
$4.85 |
| Subtotal Heap Leach |
$62,113,278 |
$6.81 |
| 21.3.1 | Process Plant Operating & Maintenance Costs |
The concentrator and heap leach operating
costs are summarized by cost elements of labor, power, reagents, maintenance parts and supplies, and services. The concentrator operating
costs are shown by cost element in Table 21-10. The heap leach operating costs are shown by cost element in Table 21-11.
Table 21-10: Concentrator Cost by
Cost Element
| Cost Element |
LoM Cost
(C$ 000s) |
% of Total |
C$/t mill ore |
| Labor |
$633,729 |
8% |
$0.52 |
| Power |
$2,497,720 |
32% |
$2.05 |
| Reagents |
$1,308,326 |
17% |
$1.07 |
| Liners & Grinding Media |
$2,349,021 |
30% |
$1.93 |
| Maintenance Parts & Services |
$518,129 |
7% |
$0.43 |
| Supplies & Services |
$504,110 |
6% |
$0.41 |
| Total |
$7,811,035 |
100% |
$6.42 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 319 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-11: Heap Leach Cost by
Cost Element
| Cost Element |
LoM Cost
(C$ 000s) |
% of Total |
C$/t
heap leach ore |
| Labor |
$163,646 |
12% |
$0.78 |
| Power |
$114,581 |
8% |
$0.55 |
| Reagents |
$855,881 |
61% |
$4.08 |
| Liners |
$143,086 |
10% |
$0.68 |
| Maintenance Parts & Services |
$89,223 |
6% |
$0.43 |
| Supplies & Services |
$45,775 |
3% |
$0.22 |
| Total |
$1,412,192 |
100% |
$6.73 |
| 21.3.1.1 | Process Labor & Fringes |
Process labor costs were derived from
a staffing plan and based on prevailing annual labor rates referenced from an industry survey of Canadian wages and benefits. Labor rates
and fringe benefits for employees include all applicable social security benefits as well as all applicable payroll taxes.
Power costs were based on obtaining power
from an LNG fueled power plant at a rate of C$0.098 per kWh. Power consumption is estimated using the equipment connected kW rating, discounted
for operating time per day and anticipated operating load level. A summary of the power cost and consumptions are shown in Table 21-12.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 320 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-12: Power Cost Summary
| Area |
Average Annual kWh |
Average Annual Cost
(C$ 000s) |
| Concentrator |
|
| Primary Crushing & Conveying |
50,334,022 |
$4,935 |
| Grinding, Classification & Pebble Crushing |
655,864,901 |
$64,307 |
| Flotation & Regrind |
109,753,496 |
$10,761 |
| Concentrate Thickening & Filtration |
10,600,885 |
$1,039 |
| Tailing Dewatering & Disposal |
80,403,768 |
$7,884 |
| Fresh Water/Plant Water |
24,982,577 |
$2,450 |
| Concentrator Reagents Area |
5,358,502 |
$525 |
| Ancillary Facilities |
8,159,779 |
$800 |
| Total |
945,457,930 |
$92,702 |
| Heap Leach |
| Heap Leach Pre-crushing |
32,672,825 |
$3,204 |
| Leaching |
5,119,786 |
$502 |
| SART |
1,859,783 |
$182 |
| ADR Plant |
12,156,409 |
$1,192 |
| Cyanide Destruction Facility |
1,682,055 |
$165 |
| Heap Leach & Gold Recovery Water System |
1,351,653 |
$133 |
| Gold Leach Reagents Area |
270,483 |
$27 |
| Total |
55,112,994 |
$5,404 |
Consumption rates were determined from the metallurgical
test data or industry practice. Budget quotations were received for reagents supplied to Skagway, AK, or from local sources where available
with allowance for freight to site. Grinding media and part consumption are based on industry practice for the crusher and grinding operations.
Reagents and consumables for the process plants are shown below in Table 21-13.
Table 21-13: Reagents and Consumables
| Reagent & Consumables |
Average Annual
Consumption (kg) |
Average Annual
Cost
(C$ 000s) |
| Copper Flotation Reagents |
|
|
| Lime (hypogene ore) |
33,883,473 |
$10,614 |
| Lime (supergene sulphide) |
36,465,054 |
$11,422 |
| Fuel Oil |
315,536 |
$1,388 |
| 3418A (hypogene) |
126,047 |
$2,231 |
| 3418A (supergene sulphide) |
113,946 |
$1,139 |
| A208 (hypogene) |
252,093 |
$1,572 |
| A208 (supergene & sulphide) |
226,536 |
$850 |
| MIBC |
450,766 |
$1,846 |
| PAX |
1,803,065 |
$7,384 |
| Flocculant |
991,686 |
$5,335 |
| Moly Flotation Reagents |
|
|
| Sodium Hydrosulphide (NaHS) |
2,389,061 |
$3,763 |
| Flocculant |
153,261 |
$825 |
| Fuel Oil |
19,834 |
$87 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 321 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| Reagent & Consumables |
Average Annual
Consumption (kg) |
Average Annual
Cost
(C$ 000s) |
| Liners and Grinding Media |
|
|
| Primary Crusher - Liners |
1,805,858 |
$5,851 |
| SAG Mill - Liners |
1,805,858 |
$6,302 |
| Ball Mill - Liners |
2,163,678 |
$7,465 |
| SAG Mill - Balls |
18,030,652 |
$33,239 |
| Ball Mill - Balls |
18,030,652 |
$30,557 |
| Regrind Mill - Balls |
1,848,142 |
$3,587 |
| Heap Leach/SART Reagents |
|
|
| Sodium Hydrosulphide (NaHS) |
220,991 |
$348 |
| Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4) |
2,865,025 |
$2,202 |
| Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) |
87,348 |
$64 |
| Pebble Lime (CaO) |
30,712,801 |
$9,620 |
| Sodium Hydroxide (caustic, NaOH) |
1,135,528 |
$1,960 |
| Sodium Cyanide (NaCN) |
4,367,417 |
$20,746 |
| Activated Carbon |
96,083 |
$577 |
| Antiscalant |
26,205 |
$127 |
| Flocculant |
3,057 |
$16 |
| Liners |
|
|
| Primary Crusher - Liners |
349,934 |
$1,134 |
| Secondary Crusher - Liners |
745,081 |
$2,414 |
| Tertiary Crusher - Liners |
745,081 |
$2,414 |
| Total Average Cost |
|
$177,081 |
| 21.3.1.4 | Maintenance Wear Parts and Consumables |
An allowance was made to estimate the
cost of equipment maintenance and the cost of facility maintenance. The allowance is 5.0% of the direct capital cost of equipment,
which equates to $17.4 million annually for repair parts and $1.7 million annually for outside repairs for the concentrator. The allowance
for the heap leach plant is $3.5 million annually for repair parts and $0.3 million annually for outside repairs.
| 21.3.1.5 | Process Supplies & Services |
Annual allowances were provided for operating
supplies such as outside consultants, outside contractors, lubricants, safety items, and miscellaneous supplies. The allowances were estimated
using historical information from other operations and projects.
| 21.3.2 | General Administration |
General and administration costs include
labor and fringe benefits for the administrative personnel, human resources, and accounting. Also included are office supplies, communications,
insurance, employee transportation and camp, and other expenses in the administrative area. Labor costs for G&A are based on a staff
of 40. Labor rates are based on a daily rate and include benefits. All other G&A costs were developed as allowances based on historical
information from other operations and other projects. Laboratory cost estimates are based on labor and fringe benefits, power, reagents,
assay consumables, and supplies and services. All other laboratory costs were developed as allowances based on historical information
from other operations and other projects. Note that laboratory services are likely to be contracted out. This estimate retains the costs
under the assumption that contract and in-house laboratory services costs are equal.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 322 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-14: Operating Cost –
Concentrator Cost Summary – Typical Year of Operation
| Processing Units Base Rate (tonnes/year mill ore) |
47,082,000 |
| |
Year 2 |
| |
Annual Cost |
C$/t |
| Primary Crushing & Stockpile Feed |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$2,430,015 |
$0.05 |
| Power |
$5,112,212 |
$0.11 |
| Liners |
$6,111,277 |
$0.13 |
| Maintenance |
$2,120,848 |
$0.05 |
| Supplies & Services |
$319,835 |
$0.01 |
| Subtotal Primary Crushing & Stockpile Feed |
$16,094,186 |
$0.34 |
| |
|
|
| Grinding, Classification & Pebble Crushing |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$2,330,748 |
$0.05 |
| Power |
$66,613,395 |
$1.41 |
| Liners |
$14,379,606 |
$0.31 |
| Grinding Media |
$70,380,403 |
$1.49 |
| Maintenance |
$11,117,085 |
$0.24 |
| Supplies and Services |
$560,996 |
$0.01 |
| Subtotal Grinding, Classification & Pebble Crushing |
$165,382,234 |
$3.51 |
| |
|
|
| Flotation & Regrind |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$2,580,001 |
$0.05 |
| Power |
$11,147,194 |
$0.24 |
| Reagents |
$56,514,066 |
$1.20 |
| Maintenance |
$4,647,987 |
$0.10 |
| Supplies and Services |
$126,831 |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal Flotation & Regrind |
$75,016,079 |
$1.59 |
| |
|
|
| Concentrate Thickening/Filtration |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$3,339,025 |
$0.07 |
| Power |
$1,076,687 |
$0.02 |
| Maintenance |
$1,521,717 |
$0.03 |
| Supplies and Services |
$126,831 |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal Concentrate Thickening/Filtration |
$6,064,260 |
$0.13 |
| |
|
|
| Tailings Dewatering & Disposal |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$1,220,250 |
$0.03 |
| Power |
$8,166,267 |
$0.17 |
| Maintenance |
$5,216,244 |
$0.11 |
| Supplies and Services |
$22,634,691 |
$0.48 |
| Subtotal Tailings Dewatering & Disposal |
$37,237,452 |
$0.79 |
| |
|
|
| Fresh Water/Plant Water |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$585,343 |
$0.01 |
| Power |
$2,537,374 |
$0.05 |
| Maintenance |
$1,008,377 |
$0.02 |
| Supplies and Services |
$93,745 |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal Fresh Water/Plant Water |
$4,224,839 |
$0.09 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 323 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| |
|
|
| Flotation Reagents |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$585,343 |
$0.01 |
| Power |
$544,240 |
$0.01 |
| Maintenance |
$809,631 |
$0.02 |
| Supplies and Services |
$82,716 |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal Flotation Reagents |
$2,021,930 |
$0.04 |
| |
|
|
| Ancillary Services |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$1,291,023 |
$0.03 |
| Power |
$828,754 |
$0.02 |
| Maintenance |
$2,455,938 |
$0.05 |
| Supplies and Services |
$82,716 |
$0.00 |
| Subtotal Ancillary Services |
$4,658,431 |
$0.10 |
| Total Process Plant |
$310,699,410 |
$6.60 |
Table 21-15: Operating Cost –
Heap Leach Cost Summary – Typical Year of Operation
| Processing Units Base Rate (tonnes/year ore) |
9,125,000 |
| Processing Units Base Rate (dore ozs/year) - Gold Ore |
76,088 |
| |
Year 2 |
| |
Annual Cost |
C$/t |
| Heap Leach (includes Tertiary Crusher & conveyor) |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$2,322,048 |
$ 0.25 |
| Power |
$3,705,546 |
$ 0.41 |
| Liners |
$6,228,217 |
$ 0.68 |
| Maintenance |
$4,181,630 |
$ 0.46 |
| Supplies & Services |
$1,412,787 |
$ 0.15 |
| Subtotal Heap Leach |
$17,850,228 |
$ 1.96 |
| |
|
|
| ADR/SART (Gold Ore) |
|
|
| Labor and Fringes |
$2,506,119 |
$ 0.27 |
| Power |
$1,698,254 |
$ 0.19 |
| Reagents |
$37,254,663 |
$ 4.08 |
| Maintenance |
$2,224,323 |
$ 0.24 |
| Supplies and Services |
$579,690 |
$ 0.06 |
| Subtotal ADR/SART (Gold Ore) |
$44,263,050 |
$ 4.85 |
| |
|
|
| Total Heap Leach |
$62,113,278 |
$ 6.81 |
| 21.3.3 | Mine Operating Costs |
Table 21-16 summarizes the mine operating
costs. Total cost, the cost per total tonne, and cost per mill tonne are shown by various time periods. During commercial production,
the unit costs for mining are C$2.29 per total tonne and C$4.283 per mill tonne. The leach tonnes are not in the divisor for the cost
per mill tonne calculations. Years 21 to 27 are low grade stockpile re-handle.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 324 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-16: Summary of Total and
Unit Mining Costs
| Category |
Total Material (kt) |
Mill Material (kt) |
Total Cost
(C$x1000) |
Cost Per Total
Tonne (C$/t) |
Cost Per Mill
Tonne (C$/t) |
| Mine Development (PP) |
75,000 |
0 |
228,026 |
3.040 |
0.000 |
| Commercial Production (Years 1 to 27) |
2,271,856 |
1,217,069 |
5,212,256 |
2.294 |
4.283 |
| All Time Periods |
2,346,856 |
1,217,069 |
5,440,291 |
2.318 |
4.470 |
| Commercial Production Years 1 - 5 |
507,897 |
219,161 |
1,121,820 |
2.209 |
5.119 |
| Commercial Production Years 6 - 10 |
517,991 |
228,337 |
1,249,213 |
2.412 |
5.471 |
| Commercial Production Years 11 - 15 |
506,262 |
230,322 |
1,227,214 |
2.424 |
5.328 |
| Commercial Production Years 16 - 20 |
421,828 |
227,689 |
1,061,503 |
2.516 |
4.662 |
| Commercial Production Yr 21 - 27 (LG) |
317,878 |
311,560 |
552,516 |
1.738 |
1.773 |
The estimate is based on assumed prices
for commodities such as fuel, explosives, parts, etc., that are subject to wide variations depending on market conditions. The current
estimate is based on the following estimated prices for key commodities:
| · | Diesel fuel delivered to the site for C$1.375 per litre. |
| · | Electrical power at C$0.098 per kWh. |
| · | Bulk emulsion at C$1.123 per kg delivered to the site. |
| · | Exchange rate of C$1.26 = US$1.00. |
The following tables show additional
details of the mine operating costs. Table 21-17 shows the mine operating cost by the various cost centres (drilling, blasting, loading,
hauling, etc.). Table 21-18 breaks out the costs by parts and consumables and the various labor components. Table 21-19 shows details
of the parts and consumables costs (fuel, power, explosives, etc.). These all reflect the commercial production period, Years 1 through
27.
Table 21-17: Mine Operating Cost by
Cost Centre
| Cost Centre |
Total Cost
(C$ x 1000) |
Cost Per
Total Tonne
(C$/t) |
Cost Per
Mill Tonne
(C$/t) |
% of Total |
| Drilling |
340,698 |
0.150 |
0.280 |
6.5% |
| Blasting |
664,150 |
0.292 |
0.546 |
12.7% |
| Loading |
572,101 |
0.252 |
0.470 |
11.0% |
| Hauling |
2,587,914 |
1.139 |
2.126 |
49.7% |
| Roads and Dumps |
535,766 |
0.236 |
0.440 |
10.3% |
| Mine Services |
334,943 |
0.147 |
0.275 |
6.4% |
| Mine Administration |
176,692 |
0.078 |
0.145 |
3.4% |
| Total Cost |
5,212,265 |
2.294 |
4.283 |
100.0% |
| Total and Mill Ktonnes |
|
2,271,856 |
1,217,069 |
|
Table 21-18: Mine Operating Cost
by Consumables versus Labor
| Category |
Total Cost
(C$ x 1000) |
Cost Per
Total Tonne
(C$/t) |
Cost Per
Mill Tonne
(C$/t) |
% of Total |
| Parts and Consumables |
4,041,119 |
1.779 |
3.320 |
77.5% |
| Mine Administration Salaries |
141,354 |
0.062 |
0.116 |
2.7% |
| Operating Labor |
467,916 |
0.206 |
0.384 |
9.0% |
| Maintenance Labor |
561,876 |
0.247 |
0.462 |
10.8% |
| Total Cost |
5,212,265 |
2.294 |
4.283 |
100.0% |
| Total and Mill Ktonnes |
|
2,271,856 |
1,217,069 |
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 325 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 21-19: Mine Parts and Consumables
Costs
| Category |
Total Cost
(C$ x 1000) |
Cost Per
Total Tonne
(C$/t) |
Cost Per
Mill Tonne
(C$/t) |
% of Total |
| Fuel |
1,617,650 |
0.712 |
1.329 |
40.0% |
| Power |
53,201 |
0.023 |
0.044 |
1.3% |
| Tires |
429,700 |
0.189 |
0.353 |
10.6% |
| Replacement Parts |
529,823 |
0.233 |
0.435 |
13.1% |
| Lubricants and Filters |
618,270 |
0.272 |
0.508 |
15.3% |
| Ground Engaging Wear Parts |
107,582 |
0.047 |
0.088 |
2.7% |
| Blasting |
649,555 |
0.286 |
0.534 |
16.1% |
| Mine Administration |
35,338 |
0.016 |
0.029 |
0.9% |
| Other |
0 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.0% |
| Total Cost |
4,041,119 |
1.779 |
3.320 |
100.0% |
| Total and Mill Ktonnes |
|
2,271,856 |
1,217,069 |
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 326 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The economic analysis uses a discounted
cash flow (DCF) methodology to determine the Net Present Value (NPV), payback period (time in years to recapture the initial capital investment),
and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the project. Annual cash flow projections were estimated over the life of the mine based on
the estimates of capital expenditures, production costs, and sales revenue. The sales revenue is based on the production of copper concentrate
with gold and silver credits, molybdenum concentrate, and gold & silver doré. The estimates of capital expenditures and site
production costs have been developed specifically for this project and have been presented in earlier sections of this report.
This economic analysis is based on measured
and indicated mineral resources only. Inferred mineral resources are considered waste for this analysis.
All amounts are in Canadian dollars unless
noted otherwise.
| 22.1 | Mine Production Statistics |
Mine production is reported as direct
feed mill mineralized material, SOX stockpile mineralized material, low grade mineralized material, leach mineralized material and waste
material from the mining operation. The annual production figures were obtained from the mine plan as reported earlier in this report.
The financial model assumes the stockpiling of low-grade mineralized material and its subsequent processing at the end of the mine life.
The life of mine mineralized material
and waste quantities and mineralized material grade are presented in Table 22-1.
Table 22-1: Life of Mine Mineralized
Material, Waste Quantities and Mineralized Material Grade
| |
Tonnes (000’) |
Copper % |
Moly % |
Gold g/t |
Silver g/t |
| Direct Mill Feed Mineralized Material |
913,893 |
0.206% |
0.02% |
0.230 |
1.773 |
| SOX Stockpile Mineralized Material |
35,340 |
0.413% |
0.03% |
0.569 |
2.582 |
| Low Grade Mineralized Material |
267,836 |
0.120% |
0.01% |
0.136 |
1.187 |
| Leach Mineralized Material |
209,637 |
0.036% |
|
0.265 |
1.946 |
| Waste |
611,264 |
|
|
|
|
| Total Material Mined |
2,037,970 |
|
|
|
|
| 22.2 | Plant Production Statistics |
In the current plan, all the mill mineralized
material and leach mineralized material is processed directly, with the low-grade mill mineralized material being stockpiled and processed
at the end of the mine life. The leach mineralized material will begin to be processed in Year -2, which is two years before the mill
mineralized material processing begins.
The gold mineralized material heap leach
processing will produce three products, gold and silver doré and a copper precipitate. The estimated production over the life of
the heap leach is 1,427,000 ounces of gold, 3,410,000 ounces of silver, and 29.8 million pounds of copper.
Production from the flotation plant will
produce a copper-gold-silver concentrate and a molybdenum concentrate. The estimated copper concentrate production for the life of the
flotation plant is 7.12 million tonnes containing 4.4 billion pounds of copper and 5.7 million ounces of gold and 34.5 million ounces
of silver. The estimated molybdenum concentrate production for the life of the flotation plant is 330,000 tonnes containing 407.3 million
pounds of molybdenum.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 327 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The base case financial indicators have
been determined based on 100% equity financing of the initial capital. The analysis assumes LNG is used to fuel the power plant from initial
start-up of the concentrator and the haulage units throughout the life of the mine. Any acquisition cost or expenditures prior to the
full project production decision have been treated as “sunk” costs and have not been included in the analysis.
The total capital cost estimated for
the project is $3.617 billion in Canadian dollars. The initial capital includes expenditures for Owner’s cost, contingency, pre-production
mining and the LNG power plant.
22.3.2
Sustaining Capital
Sustaining capital is scheduled over
the operating life of the mine for tailings and heap leach expansion as well as equipment replacement. The total life of mine sustaining
capital is estimated to be $751.3 million. This capital will be expended during a 25-year period.
22.3.3
Working Capital
An estimation of working capital has
been included in the DCF analysis assuming 60 days for receipt of sales revenue (accounts receivable) and 30 days for payment to vendors
(accounts payable). An allowance for initial replacement parts inventory for the heap leach plant (year -2) and concentrator (year -1)
is also included. All the working capital is recaptured at the end of the mine life and the final value of the account is $0.
22.3.4
Salvage Value
An allowance of $22.8 million is included
in the DCF analysis as a return of capital from the salvage and resale of equipment at the end of the mine life.
Annual revenue is determined by applying
selected metal prices to the annual payable metal contained in the concentrates and doré estimated for each operating year. Sales
prices have been applied to all life of mine production without escalation or hedging. The base case financial evaluation uses long term
prices that were based on analyst consensus of US$3.60 per pound of copper, US$1,700 per oz of gold, US$22.00 per oz of silver and US$14.00
per pound of molybdenum with an exchange rate of US$0.80 per CAD$. Prices used are as shown in Table 22-2.
Table 22-2: Metal Prices Used in Economic
Analysis
| -Metal |
Long Term Price
US $ |
Long Term Price
CAD $ |
| Copper (price/lb) |
$3.60 |
CAD 4.50 |
| Gold (price/oz) |
$1,700.00 |
CAD 2,125.00 |
| Silver (price/oz) |
$22.00 |
CAD 27.50 |
| Molybdenum (price/lb) |
$14.00 |
CAD 17.50 |
The revenue is the gross value of
payable metals sold before transportation and smelting charges.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 328 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 22.5 | Total Cash Operating Cost |
The average sulphide cash operating costs
are $13.24 per tonne of mill mineralized material processed. Included in these costs are the mining operations, concentrator, general
administration, and smelter and transportation costs. Heap Leach cash operating cost is $6.79 per tonne of oxide mineralized material.
Included in these costs are the heap leach operations, ADR/SART operations and transportation and refining.
Specifics of operating costs are discussed
in Section 21.
| 22.6 | Total Cash Production Cost |
Total Cash Production Cost is the Total
Cash Operating Cost, plus royalties, carbon tax, reclamation & closure, property tax and salvage income. The sulphide average cash
production cost including these items totals $15.84 per tonne of mill mineralized material processed. The Heap Leach costs remain the
same at $6.79 per tonne of leach mineralized material as the sulphide process bears these additional costs alone.
22.6.1
Royalty
A net smelter return (NSR) royalty will
be paid using a rate of 2.75% totalling $998.6 million over the life of the mine.
It is estimated that $2.26 billion will
be paid in Yukon mining royalties. Yukon mining royalties are based on a sliding scale of 3-12% of revenues less operating expenses, depreciation,
and pre-production expenses.
Corporate income taxes are estimated
to be $3.69 billion for the life of the mine based on a 27% combined federal and territorial corporate income tax rate. A deduction of
depreciation for class 41A assets is being taken which results in no income tax being paid until initial capital is fully depreciated.
These deductions against income are applied each year but cannot create a loss.
An allowance of $100,000 per year was
included in the cash flow to account for property tax.
Carbon tax payments under the Output
Based Pricing System (OBPS) are based on facility output by type of industrial process, with standards specified in the OBPS Regulation
that establish the quantity (limit) of emissions a facility may emit before a tax is payable. A facility must pay carbon taxes on total
eligible emissions above the limit, whereas a facility with total emissions below the limit will qualify for a credit. Credits can be
held for use against future payment obligations or sold to another OBPS regulated facility.
The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission compensation
cost was estimated for the Casino Mine on a year-by-year basis in accordance with the Canadian government’s OBPS and engagement
with Intergroup Consultants, Ltd, based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The estimated carbon tax is included in the project financial model.
The schedule of annual compensation is
based on:
| 1. | The Canadian government’s declared path toward a $170/tonne carbon price by 2030, |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 329 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 2. | The decreasing Output Based Standards (emission limits) for electrical generation, and |
| 3. | Casino Mine operating at the production levels as indicated in the mine plan (for site hauling, and full
electrical and heat production). |
| 4. | The estimated LNG fuel consumption for electrical power generation based on annual electrical demand projections
and the thermal efficiency of the power plant. |
| 5. | The estimated annual quantity of diesel fuel for mining and other on-site uses was used to determine the
GHG emissions from diesel consumption. |
22.6.3
Reclamation & Closure
An allowance of $300.0 million is included
in the analysis, which was estimated and provided by Western Copper and Gold. Expenditures for the closure activity begins in the last
production year and spans 6 years.
| 22.7 | Total Production Cost |
Total Production Cost is the Total Cash
Cost plus depreciation. Depreciation is calculated by the 25% Declining Balance method starting with the first year of production. The
last year of production is the catch-up year if the assets are not fully depreciated by that time. An additional deduction for the initial
capital is being taken in the early years until the initial capital is fully depreciated.
It is assumed the project will be 100%
equity financed.
Net Income after tax amounts to $10.0
billion for the life of the mine.
The base case economic analysis (Table
22-3) indicates that the project has an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 18.1% after taxes with a payback period of 3.3 years.
Table 22-3 shows the impact to the NPV
(at various discount rates), IRR and payback economic indicators if percentage changes to metals prices, initial capital, operating costs,
and mill recoveries where to occur as noted in the table. These sensitivity studies illustrate that the project’s IRR sensitivity
to variation in sales price has the most impact, while variation of operating cost, mill recovery, and initial capital cost are approximately
equal. Table 22-4 further demonstrates the project’s sensitivity to metals prices.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 330 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 22-3: Sensitivity Analysis (After
tax, CAD$M)
| |
NPV @ 0% |
NPV @ 5% |
NPV @ 8% |
NPV @ 10% |
IRR |
Payback Years |
| Base Case (LTP) |
$10,019 |
$4,059 |
$2,334 |
$1,568 |
18.1% |
3.3 |
| Base-Case Sensitivities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Metals Price +10% |
$12,582 |
$5,313 |
$3,211 |
$2,276 |
21.2% |
2.8 |
| Metals Price -10% |
$7,456 |
$2,802 |
$1,454 |
$857 |
14.7% |
4.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Capex +10% |
$9,786 |
$3,837 |
$2,122 |
$1,362 |
16.5% |
3.6 |
| Capex -10% |
$10,253 |
$4,280 |
$2,547 |
$1,775 |
19.9% |
3.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Opex +10% |
$9,052 |
$3,604 |
$2,024 |
$1,322 |
17.0% |
3.5 |
| Opex -10% |
$10,986 |
$4,513 |
$2,645 |
$1,815 |
19.1% |
3.1 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mill Recovery +5% |
$11,125 |
$4,594 |
$2,707 |
$1,867 |
19.4% |
3.1 |
| Mill Recovery -5% |
$8,914 |
$3,523 |
$1,962 |
$1,269 |
16.7% |
3.6 |
|
Base Case Commodity Prices (CAD$)
Copper $4.50
Molybdenum $17.50
Gold $2,125.00
Silver $27.50 |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 331 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 22-4: Metal Price Sensitivity
Mineralized material mined during
the first four years is substantially higher in copper, gold, silver, and molybdenum than the life-of-mine average. This has a favorable
impact to cash flow during those years allowing payback in 3.3 years under the base case. Table 22-5 illustrates the difference during
these early years.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 332 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 22-5: Project Cash Flow
| |
Years 1-4 |
Life of Mine |
| Average Annual Pre-Tax Cashflow (C$ 000s) |
$1,032,581 |
$661,703 |
| Average Annual After-Tax Cashflow (C$ 000s) |
$950,781 |
$517,271 |
| Average NSR (sulphide mineralized material C$) |
$43.15 |
$29.08 |
| |
|
|
| Average Annual Mill Feed Grade |
|
|
| Copper (%) |
0.300% |
0.189% |
| Gold (g/t) |
0.352 |
0.217 |
| Silver (g/t) |
2.054 |
1.659 |
| Molybdenum (%) |
0.025% |
0.021% |
| |
|
|
| Average Concentrate Production |
|
|
| Copper (dry kt) |
390 |
264 |
| Molybdenum (dry kt) |
13 |
12 |
| |
|
|
| Average Annual Metal Production |
|
|
| Copper & Molybdenum Concentrate |
| Copper (Mlbs) |
241 |
163 |
| Gold (koz) |
333 |
211 |
| Silver (koz) |
1,596 |
1,277 |
| Molybdenum (Mlbs) |
15.5 |
15.1 |
| Gold/Silver Doré |
| Gold (koz) |
73 |
57 |
| Silver (koz) |
159 |
136 |
| Copper Precipitate |
| Copper (Mlbs) |
1.5 |
1.2 |
The Financial Model is shown on the following
page in Table 22-6.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 333 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 22-6: Financial Model
| |
Total |
-4 |
-3 |
-2 |
-1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
| Mining Operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Direct Feed Mill Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory (kt) |
913,893 |
|
913,893 |
913,893 |
913,225 |
908,183 |
879,269 |
832,187 |
785,601 |
743,737 |
701,920 |
660,087 |
618,185 |
575,793 |
533,058 |
491,573 |
450,026 |
406,959 |
363,229 |
316,561 |
271,413 |
225,824 |
179,651 |
134,108 |
89,073 |
43,724 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
913,893 |
|
- |
668 |
5,042 |
28,914 |
47,082 |
46,586 |
41,864 |
41,817 |
41,833 |
41,902 |
42,392 |
42,735 |
41,485 |
41,547 |
43,067 |
43,730 |
46,668 |
45,148 |
45,589 |
46,173 |
45,543 |
45,035 |
45,349 |
34,548 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
913,893 |
913,225 |
908,183 |
879,269 |
832,187 |
785,601 |
743,737 |
701,920 |
660,087 |
618,185 |
575,793 |
533,058 |
491,573 |
450,026 |
406,959 |
363,229 |
316,561 |
271,413 |
225,824 |
179,651 |
134,108 |
89,073 |
43,724 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.206% |
|
0.000% |
0.236% |
0.238% |
0.352% |
0.334% |
0.271% |
0.256% |
0.209% |
0.197% |
0.200% |
0.200% |
0.185% |
0.220% |
0.268% |
0.192% |
0.194% |
0.182% |
0.203% |
0.158% |
0.148% |
0.152% |
0.162% |
0.132% |
0.158% |
0.190% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.024% |
|
0.0000% |
0.0177% |
0.0127% |
0.0235% |
0.0312% |
0.0294% |
0.0172% |
0.0150% |
0.0171% |
0.0250% |
0.0290% |
0.0331% |
0.0313% |
0.0289% |
0.0312% |
0.0298% |
0.0247% |
0.0119% |
0.0134% |
0.0134% |
0.0187% |
0.0240% |
0.0287% |
0.0286% |
0.0335% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.230 |
|
- |
0.358 |
0.420 |
0.421 |
0.373 |
0.346 |
0.284 |
0.247 |
0.250 |
0.242 |
0.233 |
0.218 |
0.224 |
0.211 |
0.214 |
0.204 |
0.172 |
0.166 |
0.187 |
0.178 |
0.186 |
0.182 |
0.155 |
0.165 |
0.203 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.773 |
|
- |
1.930 |
2.199 |
2.535 |
1.998 |
1.997 |
1.887 |
1.740 |
1.737 |
2.220 |
1.630 |
1.667 |
1.901 |
1.881 |
1.703 |
1.538 |
1.791 |
1.563 |
1.534 |
1.662 |
2.270 |
1.560 |
1.170 |
1.540 |
1.210 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
4,155,875 |
|
- |
3,476 |
26,441 |
224,614 |
346,376 |
278,287 |
236,374 |
192,539 |
181,887 |
184,756 |
186,849 |
174,760 |
200,964 |
245,773 |
182,023 |
186,633 |
187,308 |
202,499 |
159,053 |
151,058 |
152,616 |
160,842 |
131,970 |
120,341 |
38,436 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
483,780 |
|
- |
261 |
1,416 |
14,957 |
32,414 |
30,207 |
15,853 |
13,850 |
15,775 |
23,094 |
27,084 |
31,155 |
28,640 |
26,449 |
29,668 |
28,768 |
25,411 |
11,833 |
13,421 |
13,669 |
18,776 |
23,828 |
28,693 |
21,783 |
6,777 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
6,751 |
|
- |
8 |
68 |
391 |
565 |
518 |
382 |
332 |
336 |
326 |
318 |
299 |
299 |
282 |
297 |
287 |
258 |
241 |
274 |
265 |
272 |
264 |
226 |
183 |
60 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
52,083 |
|
- |
41 |
356 |
2,356 |
3,024 |
2,990 |
2,540 |
2,339 |
2,336 |
2,991 |
2,222 |
2,290 |
2,536 |
2,513 |
2,358 |
2,162 |
2,688 |
2,269 |
2,248 |
2,467 |
3,324 |
2,259 |
1,706 |
1,711 |
357 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| SOX Stockpile Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory (kt) |
35,340 |
|
35,340 |
35,319 |
32,442 |
21,073 |
1,172 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
35,340 |
|
21 |
2,877 |
11,369 |
19,901 |
1,172 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
35,319 |
32,442 |
21,073 |
1,172 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.413% |
|
0.189% |
0.192% |
0.199% |
0.575% |
0.300% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.031% |
|
0.0141% |
0.0191% |
0.0223% |
0.0385% |
0.0116% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.569 |
|
0.474 |
0.576 |
0.620 |
0.559 |
0.248 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
2.582 |
|
2.200 |
2.310 |
2.980 |
2.453 |
1.580 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
322,042 |
|
88 |
12,178 |
49,878 |
252,147 |
7,751 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
23,980 |
|
7 |
1,211 |
5,589 |
16,873 |
300 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
647 |
|
0 |
53 |
227 |
357 |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
2,934 |
|
1 |
214 |
1,089 |
1,570 |
60 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Low Grade Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory(kt) |
267,836 |
|
267,836 |
267,836 |
267,827 |
266,951 |
262,814 |
250,946 |
244,336 |
228,694 |
194,243 |
169,188 |
151,747 |
142,973 |
134,252 |
121,875 |
113,207 |
102,715 |
98,885 |
95,743 |
89,722 |
68,916 |
40,782 |
17,228 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
267,836 |
|
- |
9 |
876 |
4,137 |
11,868 |
6,610 |
15,642 |
34,451 |
25,055 |
17,441 |
8,774 |
8,721 |
12,377 |
8,668 |
10,492 |
3,830 |
3,142 |
6,021 |
20,806 |
28,134 |
23,554 |
17,228 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
267,836 |
267,827 |
266,951 |
262,814 |
250,946 |
244,336 |
228,694 |
194,243 |
169,188 |
151,747 |
142,973 |
134,252 |
121,875 |
113,207 |
102,715 |
98,885 |
95,743 |
89,722 |
68,916 |
40,782 |
17,228 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.120% |
|
0.000% |
0.183% |
0.162% |
0.181% |
0.196% |
0.124% |
0.141% |
0.139% |
0.121% |
0.114% |
0.114% |
0.091% |
0.115% |
0.131% |
0.099% |
0.109% |
0.129% |
0.131% |
0.108% |
0.103% |
0.098% |
0.100% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.012% |
|
0.0000% |
0.0148% |
0.0054% |
0.0111% |
0.0059% |
0.0059% |
0.0100% |
0.0080% |
0.0107% |
0.0143% |
0.0127% |
0.0099% |
0.0106% |
0.0121% |
0.0117% |
0.0088% |
0.0092% |
0.0080% |
0.0103% |
0.0140% |
0.0168% |
0.0189% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.136 |
|
- |
0.272 |
0.236 |
0.183 |
0.141 |
0.168 |
0.136 |
0.143 |
0.147 |
0.138 |
0.136 |
0.176 |
0.153 |
0.124 |
0.135 |
0.114 |
0.125 |
0.110 |
0.125 |
0.121 |
0.124 |
0.115 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.187 |
|
- |
1.580 |
1.395 |
1.314 |
0.936 |
1.096 |
1.225 |
1.240 |
1.368 |
1.261 |
1.126 |
1.044 |
1.117 |
1.196 |
1.083 |
1.011 |
1.268 |
1.038 |
1.101 |
1.213 |
1.380 |
0.960 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
710,611 |
|
- |
36 |
3,129 |
16,536 |
51,282 |
18,139 |
48,646 |
105,925 |
66,565 |
43,739 |
22,126 |
17,496 |
31,444 |
24,987 |
22,785 |
9,225 |
8,915 |
17,336 |
49,486 |
63,942 |
50,889 |
37,981 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
68,426 |
|
- |
3 |
103 |
1,011 |
1,534 |
861 |
3,450 |
6,057 |
5,931 |
5,517 |
2,463 |
1,896 |
2,883 |
2,303 |
2,712 |
743 |
638 |
1,056 |
4,703 |
8,660 |
8,724 |
7,178 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
1,171 |
|
- |
0 |
7 |
24 |
54 |
36 |
68 |
158 |
119 |
78 |
38 |
49 |
61 |
35 |
46 |
14 |
13 |
21 |
83 |
109 |
94 |
64 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
10,219 |
|
- |
0 |
39 |
175 |
357 |
233 |
616 |
1,373 |
1,102 |
707 |
318 |
293 |
445 |
333 |
365 |
124 |
128 |
201 |
736 |
1,097 |
1,045 |
532 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Total Mill Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory(kt) |
1,217,069 |
- |
1,217,069 |
1,217,048 |
1,213,494 |
1,196,207 |
1,143,255 |
1,083,133 |
1,029,937 |
972,431 |
896,163 |
829,275 |
769,932 |
718,766 |
667,310 |
613,448 |
563,233 |
509,674 |
462,114 |
412,304 |
361,135 |
294,740 |
220,433 |
151,336 |
89,073 |
43,724 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
1,217,069 |
- |
21 |
3,554 |
17,287 |
52,952 |
60,122 |
53,196 |
57,506 |
76,268 |
66,888 |
59,343 |
51,166 |
51,456 |
53,862 |
50,215 |
53,559 |
47,560 |
49,810 |
51,169 |
66,395 |
74,307 |
69,097 |
62,263 |
45,349 |
34,548 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
1,217,048 |
1,213,494 |
1,196,207 |
1,143,255 |
1,083,133 |
1,029,937 |
972,431 |
896,163 |
829,275 |
769,932 |
718,766 |
667,310 |
613,448 |
563,233 |
509,674 |
462,114 |
412,304 |
361,135 |
294,740 |
220,433 |
151,336 |
89,073 |
43,724 |
9,176 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.193% |
0.000% |
0.189% |
0.200% |
0.208% |
0.423% |
0.306% |
0.253% |
0.225% |
0.178% |
0.168% |
0.175% |
0.185% |
0.169% |
0.196% |
0.245% |
0.173% |
0.187% |
0.179% |
0.195% |
0.142% |
0.131% |
0.134% |
0.145% |
0.132% |
0.158% |
0.190% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.021% |
0.000% |
0.014% |
0.019% |
0.019% |
0.028% |
0.026% |
0.026% |
0.015% |
0.012% |
0.015% |
0.022% |
0.026% |
0.029% |
0.027% |
0.026% |
0.027% |
0.028% |
0.024% |
0.011% |
0.012% |
0.014% |
0.018% |
0.023% |
0.029% |
0.029% |
0.034% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.219 |
- |
0.474 |
0.534 |
0.542 |
0.454 |
0.325 |
0.324 |
0.244 |
0.200 |
0.211 |
0.212 |
0.216 |
0.211 |
0.208 |
0.196 |
0.199 |
0.197 |
0.169 |
0.159 |
0.167 |
0.157 |
0.165 |
0.163 |
0.155 |
0.165 |
0.203 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.667 |
- |
2.200 |
2.237 |
2.672 |
2.409 |
1.780 |
1.885 |
1.707 |
1.514 |
1.599 |
1.938 |
1.544 |
1.561 |
1.721 |
1.763 |
1.582 |
1.495 |
1.758 |
1.501 |
1.398 |
1.492 |
1.967 |
1.394 |
1.170 |
1.540 |
1.210 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
5,188,527 |
- |
88 |
15,690 |
79,448 |
493,297 |
405,409 |
296,426 |
285,020 |
298,464 |
248,452 |
228,495 |
208,976 |
192,256 |
232,409 |
270,760 |
204,808 |
195,858 |
196,223 |
219,835 |
208,539 |
215,000 |
203,505 |
198,823 |
131,970 |
120,341 |
38,436 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
576,186 |
- |
7 |
1,475 |
7,109 |
32,840 |
34,247 |
31,068 |
19,303 |
19,907 |
21,706 |
28,612 |
29,547 |
33,051 |
31,523 |
28,751 |
32,380 |
29,511 |
26,049 |
12,889 |
18,124 |
22,329 |
27,500 |
31,007 |
28,693 |
21,783 |
6,777 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
8,568 |
- |
0 |
61 |
301 |
773 |
628 |
554 |
451 |
491 |
455 |
404 |
356 |
349 |
360 |
316 |
342 |
301 |
271 |
262 |
357 |
374 |
366 |
327 |
226 |
183 |
60 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
65,236 |
- |
1 |
256 |
1,485 |
4,101 |
3,441 |
3,223 |
3,156 |
3,712 |
3,438 |
3,698 |
2,539 |
2,583 |
2,980 |
2,846 |
2,723 |
2,286 |
2,816 |
2,470 |
2,985 |
3,564 |
4,369 |
2,790 |
1,706 |
1,711 |
357 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Leach Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory(kt) |
209,637 |
|
209,637 |
203,579 |
188,707 |
163,348 |
141,899 |
111,878 |
86,171 |
73,115 |
72,665 |
72,106 |
67,068 |
56,230 |
44,906 |
39,006 |
17,023 |
16,817 |
10,562 |
3,478 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
209,637 |
|
6,058 |
14,872 |
25,359 |
21,449 |
30,021 |
25,707 |
13,056 |
450 |
559 |
5,038 |
10,838 |
11,324 |
5,900 |
21,983 |
206 |
6,255 |
7,084 |
3,478 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
203,579 |
188,707 |
163,348 |
141,899 |
111,878 |
86,171 |
73,115 |
72,665 |
72,106 |
67,068 |
56,230 |
44,906 |
39,006 |
17,023 |
16,817 |
10,562 |
3,478 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.036% |
|
0.0220% |
0.0430% |
0.0490% |
0.0432% |
0.0190% |
0.0330% |
0.0410% |
0.0750% |
0.0060% |
0.0060% |
0.0110% |
0.0190% |
0.0340% |
0.0450% |
0.0750% |
0.0540% |
0.0560% |
0.0760% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.265 |
|
0.285 |
0.437 |
0.409 |
0.312 |
0.258 |
0.230 |
0.178 |
0.170 |
0.183 |
0.208 |
0.227 |
0.227 |
0.189 |
0.194 |
0.158 |
0.147 |
0.148 |
0.166 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.946 |
|
1.410 |
2.730 |
2.710 |
1.927 |
1.580 |
1.860 |
1.320 |
1.120 |
1.510 |
2.590 |
2.430 |
2.070 |
1.480 |
1.580 |
2.340 |
1.560 |
1.630 |
1.960 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
165,400 |
|
2,938 |
14,098 |
27,394 |
20,442 |
12,575 |
18,702 |
11,801 |
744 |
74 |
666 |
2,628 |
4,743 |
4,422 |
21,809 |
341 |
7,447 |
8,746 |
5,827 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
1,784 |
|
56 |
209 |
333 |
215 |
249 |
190 |
75 |
2 |
3 |
34 |
79 |
83 |
36 |
137 |
1 |
30 |
34 |
19 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
13,115 |
|
275 |
1,305 |
2,209 |
1,329 |
1,525 |
1,537 |
554 |
16 |
27 |
420 |
847 |
754 |
281 |
1,117 |
15 |
314 |
371 |
219 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Waste |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Inventory(kt) |
611,264 |
|
611,264 |
609,343 |
607,769 |
603,415 |
582,816 |
572,960 |
551,864 |
522,425 |
499,143 |
466,589 |
430,970 |
392,975 |
355,755 |
315,516 |
287,713 |
241,479 |
195,293 |
152,985 |
110,735 |
79,113 |
56,657 |
36,085 |
15,397 |
6,318 |
1,462 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined (kt) |
611,264 |
|
1,921 |
1,574 |
4,354 |
20,599 |
9,856 |
21,096 |
29,439 |
23,282 |
32,554 |
35,619 |
37,995 |
37,220 |
40,239 |
27,803 |
46,234 |
46,186 |
42,308 |
42,250 |
31,622 |
22,456 |
20,572 |
20,688 |
9,079 |
4,856 |
1,462 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
609,343 |
607,769 |
603,415 |
582,816 |
572,960 |
551,864 |
522,425 |
499,143 |
466,589 |
430,970 |
392,975 |
355,755 |
315,516 |
287,713 |
241,479 |
195,293 |
152,985 |
110,735 |
79,113 |
56,657 |
36,085 |
15,397 |
6,318 |
1,462 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Material Mined (kt) |
2,037,970 |
|
8,000 |
20,000 |
47,000 |
95,000 |
99,999 |
99,999 |
100,001 |
100,000 |
100,001 |
100,000 |
99,999 |
100,000 |
100,001 |
100,001 |
99,999 |
100,001 |
99,202 |
96,897 |
98,017 |
96,763 |
89,669 |
82,951 |
54,428 |
39,404 |
10,638 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Waste to Mineralized Material Ratio |
0.43 |
|
0.32 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
0.28 |
0.11 |
0.27 |
0.42 |
0.30 |
0.48 |
0.55 |
0.61 |
0.59 |
0.67 |
0.39 |
0.86 |
0.86 |
0.74 |
0.77 |
0.48 |
0.30 |
0.30 |
0.33 |
0.20 |
0.14 |
0.16 |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mine Re-handle (kt) |
226,014 |
|
- |
- |
- |
5,710 |
- |
- |
3,588 |
3,600 |
3,600 |
3,600 |
3,600 |
3,595 |
3,595 |
3,595 |
3,595 |
2,972 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
11,540 |
36,586 |
45,596 |
45,434 |
45,808 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Process Plant Operations - Concentrator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supergene Oxide Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material to Concentrator (kt) |
80,264 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
89 |
1,855 |
10,237 |
5,751 |
3,646 |
3,600 |
3,605 |
4,226 |
5,243 |
7,702 |
3,661 |
3,248 |
4,161 |
4,982 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
624 |
3,083 |
630 |
4,385 |
9,535 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material - Processed (kt) |
80,264 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
89 |
1,855 |
10,237 |
5,751 |
3,646 |
3,600 |
3,605 |
4,226 |
5,243 |
7,702 |
3,661 |
3,248 |
4,161 |
4,982 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
624 |
3,083 |
630 |
4,385 |
9,535 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Mineralized Material Inventory |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.240% |
|
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.227% |
0.188% |
0.308% |
0.378% |
0.363% |
0.257% |
0.236% |
0.204% |
0.191% |
0.185% |
0.198% |
0.187% |
0.297% |
0.283% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.184% |
0.149% |
0.151% |
0.203% |
0.172% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.020% |
|
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0118% |
0.0210% |
0.0178% |
0.0304% |
0.0299% |
0.0301% |
0.0295% |
0.0306% |
0.0294% |
0.0218% |
0.0220% |
0.0179% |
0.0101% |
0.0074% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0067% |
0.0180% |
0.0019% |
0.0084% |
0.0121% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.315 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.409 |
0.338 |
0.232 |
0.307 |
0.422 |
0.478 |
0.491 |
0.475 |
0.464 |
0.394 |
0.614 |
0.546 |
0.170 |
0.163 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.099 |
0.124 |
0.176 |
0.123 |
0.143 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.698 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.920 |
1.770 |
1.390 |
1.303 |
1.819 |
2.050 |
2.294 |
2.471 |
2.556 |
2.185 |
2.938 |
2.547 |
1.460 |
1.210 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.692 |
1.149 |
0.662 |
0.642 |
1.032 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
424,581 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
445 |
7,688 |
69,623 |
47,904 |
29,166 |
20,397 |
18,769 |
18,996 |
22,021 |
31,345 |
15,977 |
13,412 |
27,245 |
31,083 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2,533 |
10,159 |
2,100 |
19,599 |
36,117 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
35,342 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
23 |
859 |
4,028 |
3,853 |
2,407 |
2,389 |
2,341 |
2,848 |
3,399 |
3,705 |
1,772 |
1,282 |
927 |
813 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
92 |
1,220 |
26 |
812 |
2,547 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
814 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
20 |
76 |
57 |
50 |
55 |
57 |
64 |
78 |
98 |
72 |
57 |
23 |
26 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
12 |
4 |
17 |
44 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
4,383 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
5 |
106 |
458 |
241 |
213 |
237 |
266 |
336 |
431 |
541 |
346 |
266 |
195 |
194 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
114 |
13 |
91 |
316 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovery Copper (%) |
61.90% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
53.74% |
63.30% |
64.81% |
62.79% |
60.21% |
55.64% |
57.50% |
60.65% |
62.57% |
66.56% |
58.89% |
60.70% |
51.85% |
68.90% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
57.99% |
62.13% |
68.15% |
59.16% |
62.95% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Molybdenum (%) |
52.30% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Gold (%) |
69.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Silver (%) |
60.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrate (kt) |
426 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
8 |
73 |
49 |
28 |
18 |
17 |
19 |
22 |
34 |
15 |
13 |
23 |
35 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
10 |
2 |
19 |
37 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Concentrate Grade (%) |
28.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Copper (klbs) |
262,809 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
239 |
4,867 |
45,122 |
30,080 |
17,561 |
11,349 |
10,793 |
11,520 |
13,778 |
20,863 |
9,408 |
8,141 |
14,127 |
21,418 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1,469 |
6,312 |
1,432 |
11,594 |
22,736 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Gold (kozs) |
561 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
14 |
53 |
39 |
34 |
38 |
39 |
45 |
54 |
67 |
50 |
39 |
16 |
18 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
8 |
2 |
12 |
30 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Silver (kozs) |
2,630 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
63 |
275 |
145 |
128 |
142 |
160 |
201 |
258 |
325 |
208 |
160 |
117 |
116 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
68 |
8 |
54 |
190 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Molybdenum Concentrate (kt) |
15 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Molybdenum Concentrate Grade (%) |
56.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Molybdenum (klbs) |
18,484 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
12 |
449 |
2,106 |
2,015 |
1,259 |
1,249 |
1,225 |
1,490 |
1,778 |
1,938 |
927 |
671 |
485 |
425 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
48 |
638 |
14 |
425 |
1,332 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Supergene Sulphide Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material to Concentrator (kt) |
285,991 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
29,926 |
25,191 |
8,946 |
24,103 |
14,745 |
796 |
- |
43 |
969 |
22,160 |
33,538 |
7,746 |
8,352 |
4,109 |
28,388 |
11,566 |
174 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
84 |
7,132 |
21,829 |
2,421 |
14,292 |
19,481 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material - Processed (kt) |
285,991 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
29,926 |
25,191 |
8,946 |
24,103 |
14,745 |
796 |
- |
43 |
969 |
22,160 |
33,538 |
7,746 |
8,352 |
4,109 |
28,388 |
11,566 |
174 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
84 |
7,132 |
21,829 |
2,421 |
14,292 |
19,481 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Mineralized Material Inventory |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.245% |
|
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.347% |
0.397% |
0.304% |
0.256% |
0.225% |
0.219% |
0.000% |
0.137% |
0.155% |
0.247% |
0.289% |
0.250% |
0.219% |
0.197% |
0.210% |
0.209% |
0.253% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.111% |
0.124% |
0.123% |
0.083% |
0.144% |
0.167% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.020% |
|
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0223% |
0.0366% |
0.0300% |
0.0136% |
0.0142% |
0.0183% |
0.0000% |
0.0028% |
0.0064% |
0.0288% |
0.0303% |
0.0317% |
0.0279% |
0.0161% |
0.0118% |
0.0191% |
0.0208% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0194% |
0.0101% |
0.0093% |
0.0033% |
0.0080% |
0.0064% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.238 |
|
- |
- |
- |
0.418 |
0.384 |
0.332 |
0.272 |
0.239 |
0.275 |
- |
0.278 |
0.250 |
0.225 |
0.210 |
0.188 |
0.178 |
0.146 |
0.158 |
0.213 |
0.260 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.117 |
0.118 |
0.144 |
0.231 |
0.146 |
0.154 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.705 |
|
- |
- |
- |
2.431 |
1.910 |
2.030 |
1.860 |
1.740 |
2.690 |
- |
1.720 |
1.370 |
2.050 |
1.900 |
1.680 |
1.500 |
1.580 |
1.390 |
1.840 |
2.110 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.590 |
0.909 |
1.156 |
1.182 |
1.136 |
1.102 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
1,547,407 |
|
- |
- |
- |
229,172 |
220,480 |
59,956 |
136,033 |
73,141 |
3,843 |
- |
130 |
3,311 |
120,670 |
213,682 |
42,692 |
40,324 |
17,846 |
131,428 |
53,292 |
971 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
205 |
19,518 |
58,960 |
4,455 |
45,432 |
71,863 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
125,595 |
|
- |
- |
- |
14,710 |
20,326 |
5,917 |
7,227 |
4,616 |
321 |
- |
3 |
137 |
14,070 |
22,403 |
5,413 |
5,137 |
1,458 |
7,385 |
4,870 |
80 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
36 |
1,582 |
4,473 |
176 |
2,515 |
2,740 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
2,184 |
|
- |
- |
- |
403 |
311 |
95 |
211 |
113 |
7 |
- |
0 |
8 |
160 |
226 |
47 |
48 |
19 |
144 |
79 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
27 |
101 |
18 |
67 |
96 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
15,679 |
|
- |
- |
- |
2,339 |
1,547 |
584 |
1,441 |
825 |
69 |
- |
2 |
43 |
1,461 |
2,049 |
418 |
403 |
209 |
1,269 |
684 |
12 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
208 |
811 |
92 |
522 |
690 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovery Copper (%) |
81.65% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
79.03% |
81.36% |
83.55% |
81.64% |
81.33% |
83.11% |
0.00% |
81.75% |
81.94% |
82.59% |
84.08% |
84.80% |
84.93% |
81.22% |
81.43% |
84.69% |
86.56% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
75.68% |
79.64% |
79.13% |
81.63% |
80.03% |
78.97% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Molybdenum (%) |
52.30% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
52.30% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Gold (%) |
69.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
69.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Silver (%) |
60.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
60.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrate (kt) |
2,047 |
|
- |
- |
- |
293 |
291 |
81 |
180 |
96 |
5 |
- |
0 |
4 |
161 |
291 |
59 |
55 |
23 |
173 |
73 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
25 |
76 |
6 |
59 |
92 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Concentrate Grade (%) |
28.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Copper (klbs) |
1,263,517 |
|
- |
- |
- |
181,106 |
179,383 |
50,095 |
111,058 |
59,488 |
3,194 |
- |
106 |
2,713 |
99,663 |
179,671 |
36,203 |
34,248 |
14,494 |
107,020 |
45,133 |
840 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
155 |
15,544 |
46,654 |
3,637 |
36,359 |
56,753 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Gold (kozs) |
1,507 |
|
- |
- |
- |
278 |
215 |
66 |
145 |
78 |
5 |
- |
0 |
5 |
111 |
156 |
32 |
33 |
13 |
100 |
55 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
19 |
70 |
12 |
46 |
66 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Silver (kozs) |
9,407 |
|
- |
- |
- |
1,403 |
928 |
350 |
865 |
495 |
41 |
- |
1 |
26 |
876 |
1,229 |
251 |
242 |
125 |
761 |
411 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
125 |
487 |
55 |
313 |
414 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 334 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Total |
-4 |
-3 |
-2 |
-1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
| Molybdenum Concentrate (kt) |
53 |
|
- |
- |
- |
6 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
- |
0 |
0 |
6 |
9 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Molybdenum Concentrate Grade (%) |
56.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Molybdenum (klbs) |
65,686 |
|
- |
- |
- |
7,693 |
10,631 |
3,094 |
3,780 |
2,414 |
168 |
- |
1 |
72 |
7,359 |
11,717 |
2,831 |
2,687 |
763 |
3,862 |
2,547 |
42 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
19 |
827 |
2,339 |
92 |
1,316 |
1,433 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Hypogene Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material to Concentrator (kt) |
850,814 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4,698 |
21,802 |
35,785 |
11,112 |
24,921 |
40,991 |
41,902 |
42,344 |
41,135 |
17,677 |
3,902 |
35,255 |
35,102 |
38,398 |
11,778 |
34,023 |
45,999 |
45,543 |
45,035 |
45,349 |
46,088 |
45,678 |
37,839 |
20,522 |
42,757 |
26,674 |
8,504 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material - Processed (kt) |
850,814 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4,698 |
21,802 |
35,785 |
11,112 |
24,921 |
40,991 |
41,902 |
42,344 |
41,135 |
17,677 |
3,902 |
35,255 |
35,102 |
38,398 |
11,778 |
34,023 |
45,999 |
45,543 |
45,035 |
45,349 |
46,088 |
45,678 |
37,839 |
20,522 |
42,757 |
26,674 |
8,504 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Mineralized Material Inventory |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.166% |
|
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.245% |
0.261% |
0.267% |
0.260% |
0.196% |
0.197% |
0.200% |
0.200% |
0.187% |
0.190% |
0.192% |
0.179% |
0.188% |
0.168% |
0.154% |
0.141% |
0.148% |
0.152% |
0.162% |
0.132% |
0.143% |
0.118% |
0.103% |
0.097% |
0.116% |
0.120% |
0.132% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.022% |
|
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0186% |
0.0251% |
0.0297% |
0.0248% |
0.0142% |
0.0171% |
0.0250% |
0.0290% |
0.0335% |
0.0332% |
0.0245% |
0.0312% |
0.0305% |
0.0272% |
0.0140% |
0.0114% |
0.0134% |
0.0187% |
0.0240% |
0.0287% |
0.0262% |
0.0200% |
0.0121% |
0.0111% |
0.0131% |
0.0090% |
0.0070% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
0.0000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.201 |
|
- |
- |
- |
0.426 |
0.361 |
0.350 |
0.361 |
0.257 |
0.249 |
0.242 |
0.233 |
0.217 |
0.233 |
0.233 |
0.220 |
0.210 |
0.175 |
0.186 |
0.178 |
0.178 |
0.186 |
0.182 |
0.155 |
0.152 |
0.138 |
0.123 |
0.135 |
0.139 |
0.146 |
0.153 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.640 |
|
- |
- |
- |
2.750 |
2.100 |
2.000 |
2.250 |
1.830 |
1.720 |
2.220 |
1.630 |
1.670 |
1.740 |
2.130 |
1.710 |
1.520 |
1.850 |
2.130 |
1.430 |
1.660 |
2.270 |
1.560 |
1.170 |
1.395 |
1.268 |
1.198 |
1.065 |
1.267 |
1.437 |
1.280 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
3,109,005 |
|
- |
- |
- |
25,358 |
125,450 |
210,643 |
63,694 |
107,685 |
178,028 |
184,756 |
186,705 |
169,585 |
74,045 |
16,517 |
139,126 |
145,487 |
142,217 |
39,988 |
105,761 |
150,087 |
152,616 |
160,842 |
131,970 |
145,782 |
118,351 |
86,204 |
43,895 |
108,881 |
70,586 |
24,747 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
411,061 |
|
- |
- |
- |
1,923 |
12,064 |
23,431 |
6,075 |
7,802 |
15,453 |
23,094 |
27,072 |
30,380 |
12,938 |
2,108 |
24,250 |
23,603 |
23,026 |
3,635 |
8,551 |
13,589 |
18,776 |
23,828 |
28,693 |
26,592 |
20,096 |
10,131 |
5,006 |
12,343 |
5,283 |
1,317 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
5,492 |
|
- |
- |
- |
64 |
253 |
403 |
129 |
206 |
328 |
326 |
317 |
287 |
132 |
29 |
249 |
237 |
216 |
70 |
195 |
263 |
272 |
264 |
226 |
226 |
203 |
149 |
89 |
191 |
125 |
42 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
44,865 |
|
- |
- |
- |
415 |
1,472 |
2,301 |
804 |
1,466 |
2,267 |
2,991 |
2,219 |
2,209 |
989 |
267 |
1,938 |
1,715 |
2,284 |
807 |
1,564 |
2,455 |
3,324 |
2,259 |
1,706 |
2,067 |
1,862 |
1,458 |
703 |
1,741 |
1,233 |
350 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovery Copper (%) |
92.20% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Molybdenum (%) |
78.60% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Gold (%) |
66.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Silver (%) |
50.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrate (kt) |
4,644 |
|
- |
- |
- |
38 |
187 |
315 |
95 |
161 |
266 |
276 |
279 |
253 |
111 |
25 |
208 |
217 |
212 |
60 |
158 |
224 |
228 |
240 |
197 |
218 |
177 |
129 |
66 |
163 |
105 |
37 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Concentrate Grade (%) |
28.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Copper (klbs) |
2,866,502 |
|
- |
- |
- |
23,380 |
115,665 |
194,212 |
58,726 |
99,286 |
164,142 |
170,345 |
172,142 |
156,357 |
68,270 |
15,228 |
128,274 |
134,139 |
131,124 |
36,869 |
97,512 |
138,380 |
140,712 |
148,296 |
121,676 |
134,411 |
109,120 |
79,480 |
40,471 |
100,388 |
65,081 |
22,817 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Gold (kozs) |
3,625 |
|
- |
- |
- |
42 |
167 |
266 |
85 |
136 |
217 |
215 |
209 |
189 |
87 |
19 |
165 |
156 |
143 |
46 |
129 |
174 |
180 |
174 |
149 |
149 |
134 |
98 |
59 |
126 |
83 |
28 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Silver (kozs) |
22,432 |
|
- |
- |
- |
208 |
736 |
1,151 |
402 |
733 |
1,133 |
1,495 |
1,110 |
1,104 |
494 |
134 |
969 |
858 |
1,142 |
403 |
782 |
1,227 |
1,662 |
1,129 |
853 |
1,033 |
931 |
729 |
351 |
871 |
616 |
175 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Molybdenum Concentrate (kt) |
262 |
|
- |
- |
- |
1 |
8 |
15 |
4 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
17 |
19 |
8 |
1 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
2 |
5 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
17 |
13 |
6 |
3 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Molybdenum Concentrate Grade (%) |
56.00% |
|
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Molybdenum (klbs) |
323,094 |
|
- |
- |
- |
1,511 |
9,483 |
18,417 |
4,775 |
6,132 |
12,146 |
18,152 |
21,279 |
23,879 |
10,170 |
1,657 |
19,060 |
18,552 |
18,098 |
2,857 |
6,721 |
10,681 |
14,758 |
18,729 |
22,553 |
20,901 |
15,795 |
7,963 |
3,935 |
9,702 |
4,153 |
1,035 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Total Mill Mineralized Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material to Concentrator (kt) |
1,217,069 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
34,624 |
47,082 |
46,586 |
45,452 |
45,417 |
45,433 |
45,502 |
45,992 |
46,330 |
45,080 |
45,142 |
46,662 |
46,702 |
46,668 |
45,148 |
45,589 |
46,173 |
45,543 |
45,035 |
45,349 |
46,088 |
45,762 |
45,596 |
45,434 |
45,808 |
45,351 |
37,521 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material - Processed (kt) |
1,217,069 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
34,624 |
47,082 |
46,586 |
45,452 |
45,417 |
45,433 |
45,502 |
45,992 |
46,330 |
45,080 |
45,142 |
46,662 |
46,702 |
46,668 |
45,148 |
45,589 |
46,173 |
45,543 |
45,035 |
45,349 |
46,088 |
45,762 |
45,596 |
45,434 |
45,808 |
45,351 |
37,521 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Mineralized Material Inventory |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.189% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.333% |
0.334% |
0.271% |
0.269% |
0.228% |
0.211% |
0.205% |
0.203% |
0.188% |
0.218% |
0.263% |
0.192% |
0.193% |
0.182% |
0.203% |
0.158% |
0.148% |
0.152% |
0.162% |
0.132% |
0.143% |
0.118% |
0.108% |
0.113% |
0.114% |
0.136% |
0.160% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Molybdenum Grade (%) |
0.021% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.022% |
0.031% |
0.029% |
0.017% |
0.016% |
0.018% |
0.025% |
0.029% |
0.033% |
0.031% |
0.028% |
0.031% |
0.029% |
0.025% |
0.012% |
0.013% |
0.013% |
0.019% |
0.024% |
0.029% |
0.026% |
0.020% |
0.012% |
0.011% |
0.012% |
0.009% |
0.008% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.217 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.419 |
0.373 |
0.346 |
0.285 |
0.257 |
0.263 |
0.261 |
0.253 |
0.241 |
0.256 |
0.243 |
0.246 |
0.228 |
0.172 |
0.166 |
0.187 |
0.178 |
0.186 |
0.182 |
0.155 |
0.152 |
0.138 |
0.122 |
0.139 |
0.144 |
0.144 |
0.151 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.659 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.474 |
1.998 |
1.997 |
1.850 |
1.734 |
1.745 |
2.207 |
1.682 |
1.737 |
1.987 |
1.969 |
1.801 |
1.588 |
1.791 |
1.563 |
1.534 |
1.662 |
2.270 |
1.560 |
1.170 |
1.395 |
1.267 |
1.146 |
1.114 |
1.254 |
1.265 |
1.125 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
5,080,992 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
254,531 |
346,376 |
278,287 |
269,350 |
228,730 |
211,037 |
205,153 |
205,604 |
191,892 |
216,736 |
261,545 |
197,795 |
199,223 |
187,308 |
202,499 |
159,053 |
151,058 |
152,616 |
160,842 |
131,970 |
145,782 |
118,556 |
108,254 |
113,014 |
115,436 |
135,618 |
132,728 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Molybdenum (klbs) |
571,998 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
16,633 |
32,414 |
30,207 |
17,330 |
16,270 |
18,181 |
25,483 |
29,416 |
33,365 |
30,407 |
28,216 |
31,435 |
30,022 |
25,411 |
11,833 |
13,421 |
13,669 |
18,776 |
23,828 |
28,693 |
26,592 |
20,131 |
11,804 |
10,700 |
12,545 |
8,611 |
6,604 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
8,490 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
467 |
565 |
518 |
416 |
376 |
385 |
381 |
375 |
359 |
371 |
353 |
369 |
342 |
258 |
241 |
274 |
265 |
272 |
264 |
226 |
226 |
203 |
178 |
203 |
212 |
209 |
182 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
64,927 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2,754 |
3,024 |
2,990 |
2,703 |
2,532 |
2,549 |
3,228 |
2,487 |
2,587 |
2,880 |
2,857 |
2,702 |
2,384 |
2,688 |
2,269 |
2,248 |
2,467 |
3,324 |
2,259 |
1,706 |
2,067 |
1,864 |
1,680 |
1,628 |
1,847 |
1,845 |
1,357 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovery Copper (%) |
86.46% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
80.34% |
85.25% |
89.54% |
79.79% |
82.57% |
87.61% |
88.57% |
89.03% |
88.90% |
83.84% |
82.50% |
87.91% |
88.61% |
85.28% |
81.63% |
89.68% |
92.16% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.20% |
92.17% |
89.14% |
82.68% |
91.35% |
83.35% |
77.08% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Molybdenum (%) |
71.20% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
55.34% |
62.09% |
72.70% |
61.52% |
64.91% |
74.65% |
76.13% |
76.50% |
76.25% |
63.49% |
54.26% |
72.59% |
72.98% |
76.13% |
60.38% |
69.06% |
78.45% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.60% |
78.55% |
74.87% |
64.61% |
78.18% |
68.44% |
57.55% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Gold (%) |
67.06% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
68.59% |
67.66% |
66.67% |
68.07% |
67.36% |
66.44% |
66.44% |
66.46% |
66.60% |
67.93% |
68.75% |
66.97% |
66.92% |
66.49% |
68.12% |
66.87% |
66.02% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.00% |
66.49% |
67.68% |
66.30% |
67.21% |
68.31% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovery Silver (%) |
53.09% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
58.49% |
55.13% |
52.31% |
57.03% |
54.21% |
51.11% |
50.74% |
51.08% |
51.46% |
56.57% |
59.06% |
52.83% |
52.81% |
51.50% |
56.45% |
53.04% |
50.05% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.00% |
50.01% |
51.32% |
55.68% |
50.57% |
53.32% |
57.42% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrate (kt) |
7,116 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
331 |
478 |
404 |
348 |
306 |
300 |
294 |
297 |
276 |
294 |
350 |
282 |
286 |
259 |
268 |
231 |
226 |
228 |
240 |
197 |
218 |
177 |
156 |
151 |
171 |
183 |
166 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Concentrate Grade (%) |
28.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
28.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Copper (klbs) |
4,392,828 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
204,486 |
295,287 |
249,174 |
214,906 |
188,854 |
184,897 |
181,694 |
183,041 |
170,591 |
181,711 |
215,762 |
173,885 |
176,528 |
159,745 |
165,306 |
142,644 |
139,221 |
140,712 |
148,296 |
121,676 |
134,411 |
109,275 |
96,493 |
93,436 |
105,456 |
113,034 |
102,306 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Gold (kozs) |
5,693 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
320 |
382 |
346 |
283 |
253 |
256 |
253 |
249 |
239 |
252 |
243 |
247 |
229 |
172 |
164 |
183 |
175 |
180 |
174 |
149 |
149 |
134 |
119 |
137 |
141 |
141 |
124 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Recovered Silver (kozs) |
34,470 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1,611 |
1,667 |
1,564 |
1,541 |
1,373 |
1,303 |
1,638 |
1,271 |
1,331 |
1,629 |
1,688 |
1,428 |
1,259 |
1,384 |
1,281 |
1,193 |
1,235 |
1,662 |
1,129 |
853 |
1,033 |
932 |
862 |
906 |
934 |
984 |
779 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Molybdenum Concentrate (kt) |
330 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
16 |
18 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
16 |
18 |
21 |
16 |
12 |
18 |
18 |
16 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
17 |
13 |
7 |
6 |
8 |
5 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Molybdenum Concentrate Grade (%) |
56.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
56.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
| Recovered Molybdenum (klbs) |
407,264 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
9,205 |
20,125 |
21,960 |
10,661 |
10,561 |
13,573 |
19,402 |
22,505 |
25,440 |
19,306 |
15,311 |
22,818 |
21,909 |
19,345 |
7,145 |
9,268 |
10,723 |
14,758 |
18,729 |
22,553 |
20,901 |
15,814 |
8,838 |
6,913 |
9,807 |
5,893 |
3,800 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Heap Leach |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beginning Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material to Heap Leach (kt) |
209,636 |
|
- |
3,900 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
4,986 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Mined Mineralized Material - Processed (kt) |
209,636 |
|
- |
3,900 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
9,125 |
4,986 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Ending Mineralized Material Inventory (kt) |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Grade (%) |
0.036% |
|
0.000% |
0.043% |
0.049% |
0.046% |
0.032% |
0.040% |
0.045% |
0.045% |
0.029% |
0.020% |
0.011% |
0.019% |
0.028% |
0.045% |
0.046% |
0.051% |
0.051% |
0.053% |
0.033% |
0.033% |
0.021% |
0.019% |
0.021% |
0.043% |
0.046% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
0.000% |
| Gold Grade (g/t) |
0.265 |
|
- |
0.437 |
0.409 |
0.334 |
0.324 |
0.308 |
0.279 |
0.420 |
0.338 |
0.207 |
0.227 |
0.227 |
0.202 |
0.194 |
0.193 |
0.162 |
0.160 |
0.180 |
0.230 |
0.230 |
0.254 |
0.258 |
0.261 |
0.283 |
0.392 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Silver Grade (g/t) |
1.946 |
|
- |
2.730 |
2.710 |
2.122 |
2.075 |
2.233 |
1.929 |
2.648 |
1.927 |
2.031 |
2.430 |
2.070 |
1.729 |
1.580 |
1.597 |
1.566 |
1.675 |
1.627 |
1.860 |
1.860 |
1.619 |
1.580 |
1.559 |
1.706 |
2.570 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Contained Copper (klbs) |
165,400 |
|
- |
3,697 |
9,857 |
9,157 |
6,468 |
8,050 |
8,954 |
9,131 |
5,863 |
3,932 |
2,213 |
3,822 |
5,592 |
9,053 |
9,189 |
10,294 |
10,231 |
10,744 |
6,639 |
6,639 |
4,213 |
3,822 |
4,143 |
8,641 |
5,056 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Gold (kozs) |
1,784 |
|
- |
55 |
120 |
98 |
95 |
90 |
82 |
123 |
99 |
61 |
67 |
67 |
59 |
57 |
57 |
47 |
47 |
53 |
67 |
67 |
75 |
76 |
76 |
83 |
63 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Contained Silver (kozs) |
13,115 |
|
- |
342 |
795 |
622 |
609 |
655 |
566 |
777 |
565 |
596 |
713 |
607 |
507 |
464 |
469 |
460 |
491 |
477 |
546 |
546 |
475 |
464 |
457 |
501 |
412 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovery Copper (%) |
18% |
|
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
18% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| Recovery Gold (%) |
80% |
|
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| Recovery Silver (%) |
26% |
|
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
26% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Precipitate (kt) |
23 |
|
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Copper Precipitate Grade |
60% |
|
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
60% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
| Recovered Copper (klbs) |
29,772 |
|
- |
665 |
1,774 |
1,648 |
1,164 |
1,449 |
1,612 |
1,644 |
1,055 |
708 |
398 |
688 |
1,007 |
1,629 |
1,654 |
1,853 |
1,842 |
1,934 |
1,195 |
1,195 |
758 |
688 |
746 |
1,555 |
910 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovered Gold Dore - Heap Leach (kozs) |
1,427 |
|
- |
44 |
96 |
78 |
76 |
72 |
66 |
99 |
79 |
48 |
53 |
53 |
48 |
46 |
45 |
38 |
38 |
42 |
54 |
54 |
60 |
61 |
61 |
66 |
50 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Total Recovered Gold Dore (kozs) |
1,427 |
|
- |
44 |
96 |
78 |
76 |
72 |
66 |
99 |
79 |
48 |
53 |
53 |
48 |
46 |
45 |
38 |
38 |
42 |
54 |
54 |
60 |
61 |
61 |
66 |
50 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recovered Silver Dore (kozs) |
3,410 |
|
- |
89 |
207 |
162 |
158 |
170 |
147 |
202 |
147 |
155 |
185 |
158 |
132 |
121 |
122 |
119 |
128 |
124 |
142 |
142 |
123 |
121 |
119 |
130 |
107 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Payable Metals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payable Copper (klbs) |
4,239,079 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
197,329 |
284,952 |
240,453 |
207,384 |
182,244 |
178,425 |
175,335 |
176,635 |
164,620 |
175,351 |
208,210 |
167,799 |
170,350 |
154,154 |
159,520 |
137,652 |
134,348 |
135,787 |
143,106 |
117,418 |
129,707 |
105,450 |
93,115 |
90,166 |
101,765 |
109,078 |
98,725 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Payable Gold (kozs) |
5,551 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
312 |
373 |
337 |
276 |
247 |
249 |
247 |
243 |
233 |
246 |
237 |
241 |
223 |
167 |
160 |
179 |
170 |
175 |
170 |
145 |
145 |
131 |
116 |
134 |
137 |
137 |
121 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Payable Silver (kozs) |
32,746 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1,530 |
1,584 |
1,486 |
1,464 |
1,304 |
1,238 |
1,556 |
1,207 |
1,265 |
1,548 |
1,603 |
1,356 |
1,196 |
1,315 |
1,217 |
1,133 |
1,173 |
1,579 |
1,073 |
810 |
982 |
886 |
819 |
861 |
887 |
934 |
740 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Molybdenum Concentrates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payable Molybdenum (klbs) |
346,174 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7,824 |
17,107 |
18,666 |
9,062 |
8,977 |
11,537 |
16,491 |
19,129 |
21,624 |
16,410 |
13,015 |
19,395 |
18,623 |
16,444 |
6,073 |
7,878 |
9,114 |
12,544 |
15,920 |
19,170 |
17,766 |
13,442 |
7,512 |
5,876 |
8,336 |
5,009 |
3,230 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gold/Silver Dore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payable Metal Gold (kozs) |
1,399 |
|
- |
43 |
94 |
77 |
75 |
71 |
64 |
97 |
78 |
48 |
52 |
52 |
47 |
45 |
44 |
37 |
37 |
41 |
53 |
53 |
58 |
59 |
60 |
65 |
49 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Payable Metal Silver (kozs) |
3,342 |
|
- |
87 |
203 |
159 |
155 |
167 |
144 |
198 |
144 |
152 |
182 |
155 |
129 |
118 |
119 |
117 |
125 |
122 |
139 |
139 |
121 |
118 |
117 |
128 |
105 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Precipitate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payable Metal (klbs) |
28,730 |
|
- |
642 |
1,712 |
1,591 |
1,123 |
1,398 |
1,555 |
1,586 |
1,018 |
683 |
384 |
664 |
971 |
1,572 |
1,596 |
1,788 |
1,777 |
1,866 |
1,153 |
1,153 |
732 |
664 |
720 |
1,501 |
878 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Income Statement (C$000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper (C$/lb.) |
$ 4.50 |
|
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ 4.50 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Molybdenum (C$/lb) |
$ 17.50 |
|
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ 17.50 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Gold (C$/oz) |
$ 2,125.00 |
|
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ 2,125.00 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Silver (C$/oz) |
$ 27.50 |
|
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ 27.50 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrates - Cu |
$ 19,075,857 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 887,982 |
$ 1,282,286 |
$ 1,082,039 |
$ 933,229 |
$ 820,097 |
$ 802,914 |
$ 789,008 |
$ 794,856 |
$ 740,790 |
$ 789,078 |
$ 936,945 |
$ 755,097 |
$ 766,574 |
$ 693,694 |
$ 717,842 |
$ 619,432 |
$ 604,565 |
$ 611,040 |
$ 643,976 |
$ 528,380 |
$ 583,681 |
$ 474,527 |
$ 419,020 |
$ 405,748 |
$ 457,944 |
$ 490,850 |
$ 444,264 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Copper Concentrates - Au |
$ 11,795,549 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 663,422 |
$ 792,305 |
$ 715,970 |
$ 586,935 |
$ 524,583 |
$ 529,565 |
$ 524,901 |
$ 515,721 |
$ 495,779 |
$ 522,009 |
$ 503,128 |
$ 511,306 |
$ 473,920 |
$ 355,510 |
$ 339,793 |
$ 379,482 |
$ 362,050 |
$ 372,420 |
$ 360,346 |
$ 309,028 |
$ 308,959 |
$ 278,129 |
$ 245,676 |
$ 284,265 |
$ 291,591 |
$ 291,554 |
$ 257,203 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Copper Concentrates - Ag |
$ 900,517 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 42,085 |
$ 43,562 |
$ 40,864 |
$ 40,266 |
$ 35,860 |
$ 34,032 |
$ 42,786 |
$ 33,192 |
$ 34,782 |
$ 42,564 |
$ 44,087 |
$ 37,297 |
$ 32,891 |
$ 36,166 |
$ 33,460 |
$ 31,158 |
$ 32,253 |
$ 43,418 |
$ 29,505 |
$ 22,283 |
$ 26,997 |
$ 24,352 |
$ 22,530 |
$ 23,681 |
$ 24,397 |
$ 25,698 |
$ 20,352 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Molybdenum Concentrates |
$ 6,058,050 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 136,924 |
$ 299,365 |
$ 326,661 |
$ 158,587 |
$ 157,099 |
$ 201,897 |
$ 288,600 |
$ 334,758 |
$ 378,417 |
$ 287,173 |
$ 227,755 |
$ 339,421 |
$ 325,901 |
$ 287,764 |
$ 106,278 |
$ 137,863 |
$ 159,500 |
$ 219,521 |
$ 278,596 |
$ 335,477 |
$ 310,903 |
$ 235,232 |
$ 131,462 |
$ 102,826 |
$ 145,880 |
$ 87,658 |
$ 56,529 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Dore' - Gold |
$ 2,972,090 |
|
$ - |
$ 91,288 |
$ 199,904 |
$ 163,068 |
$ 158,453 |
$ 150,767 |
$ 136,492 |
$ 205,303 |
$ 164,992 |
$ 100,959 |
$ 110,949 |
$ 110,949 |
$ 98,940 |
$ 94,820 |
$ 94,423 |
$ 79,073 |
$ 78,333 |
$ 87,734 |
$ 112,416 |
$ 112,416 |
$ 124,202 |
$ 126,101 |
$ 127,335 |
$ 138,481 |
$ 104,690 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Dore' - Silver |
$ 91,897 |
|
$ - |
$ 2,399 |
$ 5,571 |
$ 4,361 |
$ 4,266 |
$ 4,590 |
$ 3,966 |
$ 5,443 |
$ 3,961 |
$ 4,176 |
$ 4,995 |
$ 4,255 |
$ 3,554 |
$ 3,248 |
$ 3,283 |
$ 3,220 |
$ 3,442 |
$ 3,345 |
$ 3,824 |
$ 3,824 |
$ 3,328 |
$ 3,248 |
$ 3,204 |
$ 3,508 |
$ 2,887 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Copper Precipitate |
$ 129,285 |
|
$ - |
$ 2,890 |
$ 7,705 |
$ 7,157 |
$ 5,056 |
$ 6,292 |
$ 6,999 |
$ 7,137 |
$ 4,583 |
$ 3,074 |
$ 1,730 |
$ 2,988 |
$ 4,371 |
$ 7,076 |
$ 7,183 |
$ 8,046 |
$ 7,997 |
$ 8,398 |
$ 5,189 |
$ 5,189 |
$ 3,293 |
$ 2,988 |
$ 3,239 |
$ 6,754 |
$ 3,952 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Total Revenues |
$ 41,023,245 |
|
$ - |
$ 96,576 |
$ 213,180 |
$ 1,905,000 |
$ 2,585,293 |
$ 2,327,182 |
$ 1,866,475 |
$ 1,755,524 |
$ 1,741,943 |
$ 1,753,503 |
$ 1,796,201 |
$ 1,767,960 |
$ 1,747,690 |
$ 1,817,059 |
$ 1,748,011 |
$ 1,689,625 |
$ 1,462,907 |
$ 1,296,849 |
$ 1,289,364 |
$ 1,279,796 |
$ 1,377,222 |
$ 1,444,760 |
$ 1,328,946 |
$ 1,379,283 |
$ 1,123,769 |
$ 818,689 |
$ 816,520 |
$ 919,813 |
$ 895,759 |
$ 778,347 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Operating Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mining |
$ 5,212,265 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 206,872 |
$ 212,376 |
$ 228,541 |
$ 232,955 |
$ 241,076 |
$ 251,829 |
$ 252,187 |
$ 250,917 |
$ 251,407 |
$ 242,874 |
$ 244,191 |
$ 248,206 |
$ 255,755 |
$ 255,346 |
$ 223,716 |
$ 229,212 |
$ 230,814 |
$ 226,389 |
$ 222,928 |
$ 152,160 |
$ 141,021 |
$ 88,558 |
$ 64,546 |
$ 62,607 |
$ 68,306 |
$ 71,210 |
$ 56,267 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Concentrator |
$ 7,811,035 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 241,141 |
$ 310,699 |
$ 300,057 |
$ 306,258 |
$ 299,018 |
$ 290,960 |
$ 290,907 |
$ 293,361 |
$ 295,859 |
$ 301,457 |
$ 309,629 |
$ 301,319 |
$ 301,620 |
$ 299,683 |
$ 305,479 |
$ 295,763 |
$ 292,607 |
$ 289,392 |
$ 286,873 |
$ 288,430 |
$ 273,776 |
$ 272,204 |
$ 276,404 |
$ 284,709 |
$ 274,959 |
$ 280,981 |
$ 247,490 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Heap Leach - Gold Mineralized Material |
$ 1,412,192 |
|
$ - |
$ 26,669 |
$ 62,118 |
$ 62,113 |
$ 62,113 |
$ 62,113 |
$ 62,114 |
$ 62,116 |
$ 62,117 |
$ 62,112 |
$ 62,112 |
$ 62,119 |
$ 62,119 |
$ 62,119 |
$ 62,112 |
$ 62,114 |
$ 62,117 |
$ 62,114 |
$ 59,911 |
$ 59,913 |
$ 59,916 |
$ 59,915 |
$ 59,914 |
$ 57,096 |
$ 35,017 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| General Administration |
$ 564,011 |
|
$ 8,084 |
$ 8,939 |
$ 10,437 |
$ 21,046 |
$ 22,325 |
$ 22,496 |
$ 22,645 |
$ 22,915 |
$ 22,695 |
$ 22,837 |
$ 23,041 |
$ 23,178 |
$ 23,002 |
$ 22,804 |
$ 22,978 |
$ 23,126 |
$ 22,887 |
$ 22,532 |
$ 22,877 |
$ 21,224 |
$ 20,432 |
$ 20,131 |
$ 18,773 |
$ 18,229 |
$ 18,202 |
$ 11,944 |
$ 12,392 |
$ 12,204 |
$ 9,836 |
$ 9,801 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Treatment & Refining Charges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Copper Concentrates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Treatment Charges |
$ 533,720 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 24,845 |
$ 35,877 |
$ 30,274 |
$ 26,111 |
$ 22,945 |
$ 22,465 |
$ 22,076 |
$ 22,239 |
$ 20,726 |
$ 22,077 |
$ 26,215 |
$ 21,127 |
$ 21,448 |
$ 19,409 |
$ 20,084 |
$ 17,331 |
$ 16,915 |
$ 17,096 |
$ 18,018 |
$ 14,783 |
$ 16,331 |
$ 13,277 |
$ 11,724 |
$ 11,352 |
$ 12,813 |
$ 13,733 |
$ 12,430 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Copper Refining Charges |
$ 329,462 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 15,336 |
$ 22,147 |
$ 18,688 |
$ 16,118 |
$ 14,164 |
$ 13,867 |
$ 13,627 |
$ 13,728 |
$ 12,794 |
$ 13,628 |
$ 16,182 |
$ 13,041 |
$ 13,240 |
$ 11,981 |
$ 12,398 |
$ 10,698 |
$ 10,442 |
$ 10,553 |
$ 11,122 |
$ 9,126 |
$ 10,081 |
$ 8,196 |
$ 7,237 |
$ 7,008 |
$ 7,909 |
$ 8,478 |
$ 7,673 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Gold Refining Charges |
$ 36,493 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 2,053 |
$ 2,451 |
$ 2,215 |
$ 1,816 |
$ 1,623 |
$ 1,638 |
$ 1,624 |
$ 1,596 |
$ 1,534 |
$ 1,615 |
$ 1,557 |
$ 1,582 |
$ 1,466 |
$ 1,100 |
$ 1,051 |
$ 1,174 |
$ 1,120 |
$ 1,152 |
$ 1,115 |
$ 956 |
$ 956 |
$ 860 |
$ 760 |
$ 879 |
$ 902 |
$ 902 |
$ 796 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Silver Refining Charges |
$ 44,121 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 2,062 |
$ 2,134 |
$ 2,002 |
$ 1,973 |
$ 1,757 |
$ 1,667 |
$ 2,096 |
$ 1,626 |
$ 1,704 |
$ 2,085 |
$ 2,160 |
$ 1,827 |
$ 1,611 |
$ 1,772 |
$ 1,639 |
$ 1,527 |
$ 1,580 |
$ 2,127 |
$ 1,446 |
$ 1,092 |
$ 1,323 |
$ 1,193 |
$ 1,104 |
$ 1,160 |
$ 1,195 |
$ 1,259 |
$ 997 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Transportation |
$ 1,498,994 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 69,778 |
$ 100,763 |
$ 85,027 |
$ 73,334 |
$ 64,444 |
$ 63,094 |
$ 62,001 |
$ 62,460 |
$ 58,212 |
$ 62,006 |
$ 73,626 |
$ 59,336 |
$ 60,238 |
$ 54,511 |
$ 56,409 |
$ 48,675 |
$ 47,507 |
$ 48,016 |
$ 50,604 |
$ 41,520 |
$ 45,866 |
$ 37,289 |
$ 32,927 |
$ 31,884 |
$ 35,986 |
$ 38,571 |
$ 34,911 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Road Maintenance |
$ 84,759 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ 3,139 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Molybdenum Concentrate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Treatment Charges |
$ - |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Transportation |
$ - |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Gold Dore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 335 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| |
Total |
-4 |
-3 |
-2 |
-1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
32 |
| Gold Refining Charges |
$ 1,855 |
|
$ - |
$ 57 |
$ 125 |
$ 102 |
$ 99 |
$ 94 |
$ 85 |
$ 128 |
$ 103 |
$ 63 |
$ 69 |
$ 69 |
$ 62 |
$ 59 |
$ 59 |
$ 49 |
$ 49 |
$ 55 |
$ 70 |
$ 70 |
$ 78 |
$ 79 |
$ 79 |
$ 86 |
$ 65 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Silver Refining Charges |
$ 1,023 |
|
$ - |
$ 27 |
$ 62 |
$ 49 |
$ 47 |
$ 51 |
$ 44 |
$ 61 |
$ 44 |
$ 46 |
$ 56 |
$ 47 |
$ 40 |
$ 36 |
$ 37 |
$ 36 |
$ 38 |
$ 37 |
$ 43 |
$ 43 |
$ 37 |
$ 36 |
$ 36 |
$ 39 |
$ 32 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Transportation |
$ 1,505 |
|
$ - |
$ 41 |
$ 94 |
$ 75 |
$ 73 |
$ 75 |
$ 66 |
$ 93 |
$ 70 |
$ 63 |
$ 74 |
$ 66 |
$ 56 |
$ 52 |
$ 52 |
$ 49 |
$ 51 |
$ 52 |
$ 61 |
$ 61 |
$ 57 |
$ 56 |
$ 56 |
$ 61 |
$ 49 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Copper Precipitate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Treatment Charges |
$ 1,688 |
|
$ - |
$ 38 |
$ 101 |
$ 93 |
$ 66 |
$ 82 |
$ 91 |
$ 93 |
$ 60 |
$ 40 |
$ 23 |
$ 39 |
$ 57 |
$ 92 |
$ 94 |
$ 105 |
$ 104 |
$ 110 |
$ 68 |
$ 68 |
$ 43 |
$ 39 |
$ 42 |
$ 88 |
$ 52 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Refining Charges |
$ 2,233 |
|
$ - |
$ 50 |
$ 133 |
$ 124 |
$ 87 |
$ 109 |
$ 121 |
$ 123 |
$ 79 |
$ 53 |
$ 30 |
$ 52 |
$ 75 |
$ 122 |
$ 124 |
$ 139 |
$ 138 |
$ 145 |
$ 90 |
$ 90 |
$ 57 |
$ 52 |
$ 56 |
$ 117 |
$ 68 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Transportation |
$ 3,864 |
|
$ - |
$ 86 |
$ 230 |
$ 214 |
$ 151 |
$ 188 |
$ 209 |
$ 213 |
$ 137 |
$ 92 |
$ 52 |
$ 89 |
$ 131 |
$ 211 |
$ 215 |
$ 240 |
$ 239 |
$ 251 |
$ 155 |
$ 155 |
$ 98 |
$ 89 |
$ 97 |
$ 202 |
$ 118 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Cash Operating Cost |
$ 17,539,221 |
|
8,084 |
35,907 |
73,301 |
649,042 |
774,548 |
755,154 |
747,079 |
733,909 |
733,965 |
732,963 |
734,523 |
731,034 |
734,424 |
762,194 |
735,248 |
744,376 |
732,564 |
709,211 |
690,794 |
685,747 |
678,582 |
675,641 |
590,260 |
568,410 |
478,320 |
409,785 |
415,131 |
417,414 |
428,109 |
373,504 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Royalty |
$ 998,570 |
|
$ - |
$ 2,486 |
$ 5,419 |
$ 46,961 |
$ 62,524 |
$ 56,930 |
$ 46,289 |
$ 43,968 |
$ 43,725 |
$ 43,436 |
$ 43,251 |
$ 42,714 |
$ 42,054 |
$ 43,328 |
$ 42,203 |
$ 40,791 |
$ 35,519 |
$ 31,343 |
$ 31,445 |
$ 31,229 |
$ 33,507 |
$ 35,023 |
$ 32,332 |
$ 33,281 |
$ 27,178 |
$ 19,763 |
$ 19,767 |
$ 22,021 |
$ 21,431 |
$ 18,653 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Property Tax |
$ 3,003 |
|
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 100 |
$ 101 |
$ 102 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Carbon Tax |
$ 1,866,838 |
|
$ 1,801 |
$ 5,871 |
$ 12,955 |
$ 57,637 |
$ 72,421 |
$ 74,308 |
$ 73,500 |
$ 74,258 |
$ 75,983 |
$ 76,302 |
$ 76,730 |
$ 77,303 |
$ 74,243 |
$ 74,957 |
$ 76,860 |
$ 78,343 |
$ 78,435 |
$ 71,546 |
$ 71,388 |
$ 72,453 |
$ 71,590 |
$ 71,017 |
$ 63,540 |
$ 63,848 |
$ 57,689 |
$ 54,350 |
$ 53,835 |
$ 55,201 |
$ 55,085 |
$ 43,389 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Salvage Value |
$ (22,807) |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ (22,807) |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Reclamation & Closure |
$ 300,000 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 25,000 |
$ 50,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 45,000 |
| Total Cash Production Cost |
$ 20,684,826 |
|
$ 9,985 |
$ 44,364 |
$ 91,775 |
$ 753,740 |
$ 909,592 |
$ 886,491 |
$ 866,968 |
$ 852,235 |
$ 853,773 |
$ 852,801 |
$ 854,604 |
$ 851,151 |
$ 850,821 |
$ 880,579 |
$ 854,411 |
$ 863,609 |
$ 846,618 |
$ 812,200 |
$ 793,727 |
$ 789,529 |
$ 783,779 |
$ 781,782 |
$ 686,232 |
$ 665,639 |
$ 563,287 |
$ 483,998 |
$ 488,833 |
$ 471,928 |
$ 504,726 |
$ 460,649 |
$ 50,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 60,000 |
$ 45,000 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Operating Income |
$ 20,338,420 |
$ - |
$ (9,985) |
$ 52,212 |
$ 121,405 |
$ 1,151,260 |
$ 1,675,700 |
$ 1,440,691 |
$ 999,506 |
$ 903,288 |
$ 888,170 |
$ 900,702 |
$ 941,596 |
$ 916,809 |
$ 896,869 |
$ 936,480 |
$ 893,600 |
$ 826,016 |
$ 616,288 |
$ 484,649 |
$ 495,637 |
$ 490,267 |
$ 593,444 |
$ 662,978 |
$ 642,714 |
$ 713,644 |
$ 560,483 |
$ 334,691 |
$ 327,687 |
$ 447,885 |
$ 391,034 |
$ 317,699 |
$ (50,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (45,000) |
| Yukon Mining Royalty |
$ 2,256,636 |
|
$ - |
$ 5,860 |
$ 15,366 |
$ 82,588 |
$ 147,812 |
$ 118,192 |
$ 63,273 |
$ 51,048 |
$ 48,734 |
$ 72,237 |
$ 121,489 |
$ 119,377 |
$ 116,630 |
$ 121,175 |
$ 115,874 |
$ 107,710 |
$ 81,919 |
$ 64,870 |
$ 66,012 |
$ 66,147 |
$ 79,467 |
$ 88,527 |
$ 85,394 |
$ 93,933 |
$ 74,277 |
$ 46,277 |
$ 45,441 |
$ 60,259 |
$ 53,512 |
$ 43,236 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Net Income before Depreciation |
$ 18,081,784 |
$ - |
$ (9,985) |
$ 46,352 |
$ 106,039 |
$ 1,068,672 |
$ 1,527,888 |
$ 1,322,499 |
$ 936,234 |
$ 852,240 |
$ 839,436 |
$ 828,464 |
$ 820,107 |
$ 797,432 |
$ 780,239 |
$ 815,305 |
$ 777,726 |
$ 718,306 |
$ 534,370 |
$ 419,779 |
$ 429,626 |
$ 424,120 |
$ 513,977 |
$ 574,451 |
$ 557,321 |
$ 619,711 |
$ 486,206 |
$ 288,414 |
$ 282,246 |
$ 387,625 |
$ 337,522 |
$ 274,463 |
$ (50,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (45,000) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Capital Cost Depreciation |
$ 1,851,365 |
|
$ - |
$ 46,352 |
$ 106,039 |
$ 866,269 |
$ 602,884 |
$ 229,822 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Additional Deduction (Class 41A Assets) |
$ 1,766,101 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 187,272 |
$ 889,364 |
$ 689,465 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Sustaining Capital Depreciation |
$ 751,278 |
|
|
|
$ - |
$ 15,132 |
$ 35,640 |
$ 42,654 |
$ 42,961 |
$ 39,831 |
$ 37,977 |
$ 37,736 |
$ 47,717 |
$ 33,317 |
$ 30,412 |
$ 32,729 |
$ 36,372 |
$ 39,119 |
$ 37,554 |
$ 28,645 |
$ 28,368 |
$ 29,680 |
$ 26,263 |
$ 20,724 |
$ 17,192 |
$ 15,330 |
$ 13,167 |
$ 14,823 |
$ 9,395 |
$ 9,281 |
$ 8,452 |
$ 20,807 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Total Depreciation |
$ 4,368,744 |
|
$ - |
$ 46,352 |
$ 106,039 |
$ 1,068,672 |
$ 1,527,888 |
$ 961,941 |
$ 42,961 |
$ 39,831 |
$ 37,977 |
$ 37,736 |
$ 47,717 |
$ 33,317 |
$ 30,412 |
$ 32,729 |
$ 36,372 |
$ 39,119 |
$ 37,554 |
$ 28,645 |
$ 28,368 |
$ 29,680 |
$ 26,263 |
$ 20,724 |
$ 17,192 |
$ 15,330 |
$ 13,167 |
$ 14,823 |
$ 9,395 |
$ 9,281 |
$ 8,452 |
$ 20,807 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Net Income After Depreciation |
$ 13,713,040 |
|
(9,985) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
360,558 |
893,272 |
812,409 |
801,459 |
790,728 |
772,390 |
764,115 |
749,827 |
782,576 |
741,354 |
679,188 |
496,816 |
391,134 |
401,258 |
394,440 |
487,714 |
553,727 |
540,128 |
604,381 |
473,039 |
273,591 |
272,851 |
378,344 |
329,070 |
253,656 |
(50,000) |
(60,000) |
(60,000) |
(60,000) |
(45,000) |
| Tax Loss Carry Forward Applied |
$ (41,985) |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
(41,985) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Net Income After Tax Loss Carry Forward |
$ 13,671,055 |
|
(9,985) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
318,573 |
893,272 |
812,409 |
801,459 |
790,728 |
772,390 |
764,115 |
749,827 |
782,576 |
741,354 |
679,188 |
496,816 |
391,134 |
401,258 |
394,440 |
487,714 |
553,727 |
540,128 |
604,381 |
473,039 |
273,591 |
272,851 |
378,344 |
329,070 |
253,656 |
(50,000) |
(60,000) |
(60,000) |
(60,000) |
(45,000) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Taxable Income |
$ 13,671,055 |
|
$ (9,985) |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 318,573 |
$ 893,272 |
$ 812,409 |
$ 801,459 |
$ 790,728 |
$ 772,390 |
$ 764,115 |
$ 749,827 |
$ 782,576 |
$ 741,354 |
$ 679,188 |
$ 496,816 |
$ 391,134 |
$ 401,258 |
$ 394,440 |
$ 487,714 |
$ 553,727 |
$ 540,128 |
$ 604,381 |
$ 473,039 |
$ 273,591 |
$ 272,851 |
$ 378,344 |
$ 329,070 |
$ 253,656 |
$ (50,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (45,000) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Taxes at 27% |
$ 3,693,881 |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
86,015 |
241,184 |
219,350 |
216,394 |
213,497 |
208,545 |
206,311 |
202,453 |
211,296 |
200,166 |
183,381 |
134,140 |
105,606 |
108,340 |
106,499 |
131,683 |
149,506 |
145,835 |
163,183 |
127,720 |
73,869 |
73,670 |
102,153 |
88,849 |
68,487 |
(13,500) |
(16,200) |
(16,200) |
(16,200) |
(12,150) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Net Income After Taxes |
$ 10,019,159 |
|
(9,985) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
274,543 |
652,089 |
593,058 |
585,065 |
577,232 |
563,845 |
557,804 |
547,374 |
571,280 |
541,189 |
495,807 |
362,676 |
285,528 |
292,918 |
287,941 |
356,031 |
404,221 |
394,294 |
441,198 |
345,318 |
199,721 |
199,181 |
276,191 |
240,221 |
185,169 |
(36,500) |
(43,800) |
(43,800) |
(43,800) |
(32,850) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cash Flow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Net Income before Depreciation plus Tax Loss Carry Forward |
$ 18,081,784 |
|
$ (9,985) |
$ 46,352 |
$ 106,039 |
$ 1,068,672 |
$ 1,527,888 |
$ 1,322,499 |
$ 936,234 |
$ 852,240 |
$ 839,436 |
$ 828,464 |
$ 820,107 |
$ 797,432 |
$ 780,239 |
$ 815,305 |
$ 777,726 |
$ 718,306 |
$ 534,370 |
$ 419,779 |
$ 429,626 |
$ 424,120 |
$ 513,977 |
$ 574,451 |
$ 557,321 |
$ 619,711 |
$ 486,206 |
$ 288,414 |
$ 282,246 |
$ 387,625 |
$ 337,522 |
$ 274,463 |
$ (50,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (45,000) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Working Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Account Receivable |
$ - |
|
$ - |
$ (15,876) |
$ (19,168) |
$ (278,107) |
$ (111,829) |
$ 42,429 |
$ 75,733 |
$ 18,239 |
$ 2,232 |
$ (1,900) |
$ (7,019) |
$ 4,642 |
$ 3,332 |
$ (11,403) |
$ 11,350 |
$ 9,598 |
$ 37,269 |
$ 27,297 |
$ 1,230 |
$ 1,573 |
$ (16,015) |
$ (11,102) |
$ 19,038 |
$ (8,275) |
$ 42,002 |
$ 50,150 |
$ 357 |
$ (16,980) |
$ 151,202 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Accounts Payable |
$ - |
|
$ 664 |
$ 2,287 |
$ 3,073 |
$ 47,321 |
$ 10,316 |
$ (1,594) |
$ (664) |
$ (1,082) |
$ 5 |
$ (82) |
$ 128 |
$ (287) |
$ 279 |
$ 2,282 |
$ (2,215) |
$ 750 |
$ (971) |
$ (1,919) |
$ (1,514) |
$ (415) |
$ (589) |
$ (242) |
$ (7,018) |
$ (1,796) |
$ (7,405) |
$ (5,633) |
$ 439 |
$ 188 |
$ (34,308) |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Inventory - Parts, Supplies |
$ - |
|
$ (500) |
$ - |
$ (5,800) |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 500 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 5,800 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Total Working Capital |
$ - |
|
$ 164 |
$ (13,589) |
$ (21,894) |
$ (230,786) |
$ (101,513) |
$ 40,835 |
$ 75,569 |
$ 17,156 |
$ 2,237 |
$ (1,982) |
$ (6,891) |
$ 4,355 |
$ 3,611 |
$ (9,121) |
$ 9,136 |
$ 10,348 |
$ 36,298 |
$ 25,378 |
$ (283) |
$ 1,158 |
$ (16,604) |
$ (11,344) |
$ 12,020 |
$ (10,070) |
$ 40,398 |
$ 44,517 |
$ 796 |
$ (16,792) |
$ 116,894 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Capital Expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Initial Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mine |
$ 660,597 |
$ - |
$ 116,315 |
$ 173,786 |
$ 190,434 |
$ 180,062 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Process Plant |
$ 2,915,976 |
$ 98,843 |
$ 857,902 |
$ 1,176,654 |
$ 737,708 |
$ 44,868 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Owners Cost |
$ 40,892 |
$ 1,636 |
$ 11,041 |
$ 17,175 |
$ 8,996 |
$ 2,045 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sustaining Capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mine |
$ 160,955 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 20,456 |
$ - |
$ 20,415 |
$ 11,883 |
$ 10,228 |
$ - |
$ 13,022 |
$ 9,019 |
$ 10,152 |
$ - |
$ 34,370 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 20,374 |
$ 3,527 |
$ 3,527 |
$ 3,982 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Tailings Management Facility |
$ 326,277 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 116,054 |
$ 48,286 |
$ 28,656 |
$ 28,656 |
$ 1,810 |
$ 787 |
$ 787 |
$ 787 |
$ 1,067 |
$ 1,307 |
$ 41,108 |
$ 39,347 |
$ 1,302 |
$ 754 |
$ 1,302 |
$ 754 |
$ 754 |
$ 1,088 |
$ 754 |
$ 1,088 |
$ 754 |
$ 754 |
$ 754 |
$ 754 |
$ 6,815 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Process Plant (includes Heap Leach) |
$ 264,045 |
|
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 5,000 |
$ 24,991 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 24,937 |
$ 25,403 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 31,888 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 25,403 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 15,216 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,804 |
$ 25,403 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ 5,000 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| Total Capital Expenditures |
$ 4,368,744 |
$ 100,479 |
$ 985,259 |
$ 1,367,615 |
$ 937,138 |
$ 348,029 |
$ 73,277 |
$ 54,112 |
$ 33,656 |
$ 27,226 |
$ 37,606 |
$ 36,418 |
$ 5,787 |
$ 19,089 |
$ 42,215 |
$ 56,261 |
$ 44,347 |
$ 40,671 |
$ 26,157 |
$ 6,302 |
$ 36,345 |
$ 9,281 |
$ 9,614 |
$ 9,736 |
$ 6,891 |
$ 26,157 |
$ 5,754 |
$ 5,754 |
$ 5,754 |
$ 11,815 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cash Flow before Taxes |
$ 13,713,040 |
$ (100,479) |
$ (995,079) |
$ (1,334,852) |
$ (852,993) |
$ 489,857 |
$ 1,353,098 |
$ 1,309,221 |
$ 978,147 |
$ 842,170 |
$ 804,067 |
$ 790,064 |
$ 807,430 |
$ 782,699 |
$ 741,635 |
$ 749,924 |
$ 742,514 |
$ 687,983 |
$ 544,511 |
$ 438,855 |
$ 392,998 |
$ 415,998 |
$ 487,758 |
$ 553,372 |
$ 562,449 |
$ 583,484 |
$ 520,849 |
$ 327,177 |
$ 277,288 |
$ 359,018 |
$ 454,416 |
$ 274,463 |
$ (50,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (60,000) |
$ (45,000) |
| Cumulative Cash Flow before Taxes |
|
$ (100,479) |
$ (1,095,558) |
$ (2,430,411) |
$ (3,283,404) |
$ (2,793,547) |
$ (1,440,449) |
$ (131,228) |
$ 846,919 |
$ 1,689,089 |
$ 2,493,156 |
$ 3,283,220 |
$ 4,090,650 |
$ 4,873,349 |
$ 5,614,984 |
$ 6,364,908 |
$ 7,107,422 |
$ 7,795,405 |
$ 8,339,915 |
$ 8,778,770 |
$ 9,171,768 |
$ 9,587,765 |
$ 10,075,523 |
$ 10,628,895 |
$ 11,191,345 |
$ 11,774,829 |
$ 12,295,678 |
$ 12,622,855 |
$ 12,900,143 |
$ 13,259,161 |
$ 13,713,577 |
$ 13,988,040 |
$ 13,938,040 |
$ 13,878,040 |
$ 13,818,040 |
$ 13,758,040 |
$ 13,713,040 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Income Taxes |
$ 3,693,881 |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ - |
$ 86,015 |
$ 241,184 |
$ 219,350 |
$ 216,394 |
$ 213,497 |
$ 208,545 |
$ 206,311 |
$ 202,453 |
$ 211,296 |
$ 200,166 |
$ 183,381 |
$ 134,140 |
$ 105,606 |
$ 108,340 |
$ 106,499 |
$ 131,683 |
$ 149,506 |
$ 145,835 |
$ 163,183 |
$ 127,720 |
$ 73,869 |
$ 73,670 |
$ 102,153 |
$ 88,849 |
$ 68,487 |
$ (13,500) |
$ (16,200) |
$ (16,200) |
$ (16,200) |
$ (12,150) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cash Flow after Taxes |
$ 10,019,159 |
$ (100,479) |
$ (995,079) |
$ (1,334,852) |
$ (852,993) |
$ 489,857 |
$ 1,353,098 |
$ 1,223,207 |
$ 736,963 |
$ 622,820 |
$ 587,673 |
$ 576,568 |
$ 598,884 |
$ 576,387 |
$ 539,182 |
$ 538,628 |
$ 542,349 |
$ 504,602 |
$ 410,370 |
$ 333,249 |
$ 284,658 |
$ 309,499 |
$ 356,075 |
$ 403,866 |
$ 416,615 |
$ 420,301 |
$ 393,129 |
$ 253,307 |
$ 203,618 |
$ 256,865 |
$ 365,567 |
$ 205,976 |
$ (36,500) |
$ (43,800) |
$ (43,800) |
$ (43,800) |
$ (32,850) |
| Cumulative Cash Flow after Taxes |
|
$ (100,479) |
$ (1,095,558) |
$ (2,430,411) |
$ (3,283,404) |
$ (2,793,547) |
$ (1,440,449) |
$ (217,243) |
$ 519,721 |
$ 1,142,541 |
$ 1,730,214 |
$ 2,306,781 |
$ 2,905,666 |
$ 3,482,053 |
$ 4,021,235 |
$ 4,559,863 |
$ 5,102,212 |
$ 5,606,814 |
$ 6,017,184 |
$ 6,350,433 |
$ 6,635,091 |
$ 6,944,590 |
$ 7,300,665 |
$ 7,704,531 |
$ 8,121,146 |
$ 8,541,447 |
$ 8,934,576 |
$ 9,187,883 |
$ 9,391,501 |
$ 9,648,366 |
$ 10,013,933 |
$ 10,219,909 |
$ 10,183,409 |
$ 10,139,609 |
$ 10,095,809 |
$ 10,052,009 |
$ 10,019,159 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Economic Indicators before Taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 0% |
0% |
$ 13,713,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 5% |
5% |
$ 5,767,739 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 8% |
8% |
$ 3,473,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 10% |
10% |
$ 2,454,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IRR |
|
21.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payback |
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Economic Indicators after Taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 0% |
0% |
$ 10,019,159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 5% |
5% |
$ 4,058,702 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 8% |
8% |
$ 2,334,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NPV @ 10% |
10% |
$ 1,568,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IRR |
|
18.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Payback |
Years |
3.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 336 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Several Yukon quartz mineral claim blocks
and placer claim blocks registered to other owners are held adjacent to, or in the general vicinity of, CMC’s claim block.
The entire extent of Canadian Creek, including its upper extent within the Casino and Canadian Creek blocks are covered by placer claims
held by W. Pilkington and B. Tinnelly, operating as Batavia Mining. Active operations from 2019 onward covering the Canadian Creek “bend”,
are located within the projected pit shell, and are worked by their owners on a seasonal basis with small heavy equipment. Also, the lower
5 km of Casino Creek are covered by a placer lease held by Sphinx Exploration Inc. The entire extent of Meloy Creek, a tributary
of Casino Creek the source of which is near the Bomber Vein, is covered by a separate placer lease held by M. Prins.
The northwestern boundary of the Casino
property adjoins the Coffee Creek project of Newmont Mining. The property hosts a structurally controlled gold deposit in metamorphic
rocks of the Yukon Tanana terrane and granitoids of mid Cretaceous age. The mineralization is associated with quartz- carbonate
and illite alteration and is best described as an orogenic deposit.
The Coffee Creek project is at a pre-feasibility
stage of development. Operations will involve gold extraction from four deposits: the Latte, Double-Double, Supremo and Kona pits. As
of early March of 2022, the Government of Yukon was satisfied with the environmental assessment of the project, which still requires granting
of a Yukon Quartz Mining Licence and a Yukon Water Licence.
The northeastern boundary of the Casino
property abuts the “Betty and Hayes” property held by White Gold Corp. This property abuts the northern boundary of the narrow
eastern extension of the Casino property. The property has undergone Rotary Air Blast (RAB) drilling for similar orogenic-style
gold mineralization to that within the Coffee Creek property. Two significant zones, the Betty Ford, and Betty White targets, have been
drilled, with the highest result of 1.08 g/t Au across 50.29 m returned from the Betty Ford target (Website, White Gold Corp).
The west boundary of the Canadian Creek
block is in contact with the TEA claim block held by White Gold Corp. The TEA block also abuts the southern boundary of Newmont’s
Coffee Creek block. Part of the south boundary of the Canadian Creek block is in contact with the SOT block held by J. Milton. Part of
the southern boundary of the eastern extension of the Casino property is in contact with the IDAHO claim block held by Atac Resources
Ltd.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 337 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Figure 23-1: Adjacent properties,
Casino Property Area (as of March 8, 2022)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 338 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 24 | Other
Relevant Data and Information |
| 24.1 | Project Execution Plan |
The Project Execution Plan describes,
at a high level, how the project will be carried out. This plan contains an overall description of what the main work focuses are, project
organization, the estimated schedule, and where important aspects of the project will be carried out. The plan is to start operations
with the Heap Leach Facility, to be followed by the concentrator. Key milestones include the following:
- Full Notice to Proceed and construction early works –
first quarter 2026
- Heap Leach operation start-up – second quarter 2028
- Concentrator start-up – fourth quarter 2029
- Commercial Production – first quarter 2030
The proposed project execution plan incorporates
an integrated strategy for engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM). The primary objective of the execution methodology
is to deliver the project at the lowest capital cost, on schedule, and consistent with the project standards for quality, safety, and
environmental compliance.
The majority of mechanical and electrical
equipment required for the project will be procured within North America. Concrete, building construction materials and timber products
will be sourced primarily in the Yukon. Structural and miscellaneous steel, piping, tanks, electrical and miscellaneous process equipment
will be largely sourced within Canada, and to the extent practical, within the region. Some commodities, such as structural steel, may
be sourced out of country.
The project will enter the basic engineering
phase in 2023 followed by detailed engineering in 2024. It is particularly important to identify priorities for long lead procurement
and priorities for early construction that support the overall construction schedule. Engineering must be completed to the point that
key procurement and construction activities have been decided contractually prior to the project’s Notice to Proceed. Some funding
may need to be committed to achieve this status.
Equipment and bulk material suppliers
will be selected via a competitive bidding process. Similarly, construction contractors will be selected through a pre-qualification process
followed by a competitive bidding process. The project will employ a combination of lump sum and unit price contracts as appropriate for
the level of engineering and scope definition available at the time contracts are awarded.
Procurement of long lead equipment and
materials will be scheduled with their relevant engineering tasks. This will ensure that the applicable vendor information is incorporated
into the design drawings and that the equipment will be delivered to site at the appropriate time, as well as support the overall project
schedule. Particular emphasis will be placed on procuring the material and contract services required to establish the temporary construction
infrastructure required for the construction program.
Construction documents need to be completed
for bidding, bids offered and received, and contractors accepted and prepared to begin work before the “Full Notice to Proceed.”
Contractors will be selected, and a hold will be put on their contracts awaiting the release of funds and the notice to proceed. January
2026 is the anticipated “Full Notice to Proceed.”
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 339 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The EPCM contractor will be responsible
for management and control of the various project activities and will ensure that the team has appropriate resources to accomplish WCGC’s
objectives. The EPCM integrated project services system from construction documents through procurement, cost control, project accounts,
warehousing, and start-up.
| 24.1.5 | Construction Management |
The construction program is scheduled
to start after the full notice to proceed, identified at this time as January 2026. The completion of one lane of the all-weather road
by third quarter 2026 will be of the highest priority. It will be necessary to get the large earth-moving equipment onto the site to begin
major work. This work will include the clearing and grubbing of the airfield and approaches, the access road to the airfield, the mine
site including the main plant building pad, the heap leach pad, the north and south access roads within the mine site, and the Tailings
Management Facility. The full access 2 lane all-weather road will be completed by third quarter 2027.
Erection of the construction camp will
be divided into two phases. The first phase, scheduled to start in June 2026, will be the relocation of the existing camp from the new
mill plant site and the construction of the new pioneer camp, which will include three Worker’s dorms, one Supervisor’s dorm,
and a kitchen/diner/recreation unit for approximately 500 personnel. The first phase should be completed by September 2026. The second
phase will begin the following construction season with further site preparation and construction of the foundations. The second phase
will expand the construction camp by approximately 880 personnel for a total of approximately 1380 personnel. It will include seven additional
Worker’s dorms, one additional Supervisor’s dorm, and two new Executive dorms. It will also include additional kitchen/dining
facilities, and recreation facilities. The entire construction camp will be completed in September 2027.
Though the concrete plant is not expected
to be able to be transported to the site until 2027, it is anticipated that sand and aggregate, as well as cement if appropriate storage
can be assured, can be staged in 2026 by utilizing the limited access road from Carmacks as well as barges during the four months that
barge traffic is available (June, July, August, and September). Additionally, it is anticipated that a low-volume batch or portable concrete
mixer will be utilized in 2026 to facilitate the construction schedule.
Processing construction will begin with
the Oxide Primary Crushing Building and the ADR/SART Facility in in the second quarter of 2027. Processing construction will finish with
full commercial production of the concentrator in the first quarter of 2030. The objective is to have sufficient structures enclosed by
the third quarter of 2027 so that mechanical and electrical work can continue during the colder months.
Contracting is an integral function in
the project’s overall execution. Contracting for the Casino Project will be done in full accord with the provisions of the WCGC
EPCM contract.
A combination of vertical, horizontal,
and design construction contracts will be employed as best suits the work to be performed, and as best suits the degree of engineering
and scope definition available at the time of award. A site-installed concrete batch plant will supply concrete to all construction contractors.
All construction contractors will utilize the Owner-furnished construction camp. Camp operations will be provided by the EPCM through
2029 and will be taken over by WCGC-contracted service providers in 2030 when production starts. Early earthwork contractors will be expected
to provide their own camps, as they will be on site prior to the erection of the site camp.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 340 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The estimate assumes that the mine fleet
will perform bulk excavation of the concentrator pad and airstrip.
The labour market in northwestern Canada
at this time is scarce. Many contractors in the Yukon are open shop. Construction labour will likely need to be imported from major population
centres by air, including possibly Alaska.
| 24.1.8 | Construction Completion and Turn-Over Procedure |
The Construction Completion Procedure
is part of the Construction Quality Plan. Contractors are to enter into contractual agreements with WCGC to perform certain portions of
the work, which includes quality control of their work. Facilities will be verified and accepted in a stepwise documented process of mechanical
completion and pre-operational testing. The main steps are as follows:
| · | Mechanical completion of components, |
| · | Pre-commissioning of instrumentation, |
| · | Pre-operational testing of overall systems, |
| · | Full commercial production. |
A project-specific Quality Plan will
be developed and implemented. The Quality Plan is a management tool for the EPCM contractor, through the construction contractors, to
maintain the quality of construction and installation on every aspect of a project. The plan, which consists of many different manuals
and subcategories, will be developed during the engineering phase and available prior to the start of construction. The Quality Plan ensures
compliance with various technical and accounting activities that will take place.
| 24.1.10 | Health and Safety Plan |
The Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will
be established for the construction of the Casino Project and any other authorized work at the project site. The HASP covers both contractor
personnel and operational personnel working at the project, and any on any other authorized work for the project.
The HASP specifies regulatory compliance
requirements, training, certifications, and medical requirements necessary for Contractors to complete the project. Along with the Operations
Procedures, the HASP is to be followed by all Contractor personnel working at the site.
The camp is being built as a construction
camp. However, it is expected that this camp will also become the permanent operations personnel camp. The camp usage will transition
from construction to operations during the latter stages of construction prior to start-up.
At the present time, the overview schedule
is shown in Table 24-1.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 341 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Table 24-1: Overview Schedule
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 342 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
25
Interpretation and Conclusions
This study has identified 1.22 billion
tonnes of Mineral Reserve at 0.19% copper, 0.22 g/t gold, 0.021% moly and 1.7 g/t silver that is amenable to conventional milling
and sulphide flotation. There is also 210 million tonnes of Mineral Reserve at 0.26 g/t gold, 1.9 g/t silver, and 0.036% copper that is
amenable to conventional heap leaching. The project is based on conventional open pit mining and typical, well understood, processing
methods.
The current Mineral Reserve is constrained
by the current engineering design of the tailings management facility (TMF). There is potential to expand the TMF capacity by constructing
an additional embankment south (downstream) of the current design. Significant work is required for the potential TMF expansion, but it
would result in increased Mineral Reserve.
A mine plan was developed to supply mill
ore to a conventional copper sulphide flotation plant with the capacity to process material at a nominal rate of 120,000 t/d or 43.8 Mt/y.
Actual annual throughput will vary depending on the hardness of the ore encountered during the period. At this rate, the current Mineral
Reserve indicates the commercial life of the project is 27 years following a three-year preproduction period.
Comprehensive metallurgical test work
programs have been completed on Casino ores over the years. Flotation testing from 2008 to 2012 has confirmed that the Casino ores respond
well to proven and widely used sulphide mineral processing techniques. Metallurgical results obtained in 2021 on oxide samples indicated
that gold recovery from the heap leach could be maximized by crushing the ore going to the heap leach to minus 19 mm. Hydrodynamic characterization
testing completed in 2022 on the oxide ore indicates that with three stage crushing percolation through the heap should not be an issue.
Both sulphide copper-molybdenum mill
material and oxide gold leach material will be processed. Copper-molybdenum mill material will be transported from the mine to the concentrator
facility. The sulphide facility design is based on processing 120,000 mtpd of material. Oxide gold leach material will be transported
from the mine to a crushing facility ahead of a heap leaching and gold recovery facility. A review of heap leaching operations in cold
climates indicates that year-round leaching at the Casino project site is feasible. Design provisions are considered in the design to
mitigate cold weather affects. The oxide crushing, conveying, stacking facilities design is based on crushing and stacking oxide material
300 days per year at a rate of 30,400 mtpd. The carbon plant design is based on leaching 25,000 mtpd of oxide material.
Copper-molybdenum mill material will
be processed by crushing, grinding using a single SABC circuit, and flotation to produce copper and molybdenum sulphide mineral concentrates.
Copper concentrate will be loaded into highway haul trucks and transported to the Port of Skagway for ocean shipment to market. Molybdenum
concentrate will be bagged and loaded onto highway haul trucks for shipment to market.
Oxide gold mill material will be processed
using a three-stage crushing circuit and conveyed to a heap leach pad where it will be leached with a cyanide leach solution. Gold in
the enriched (or pregnant) leach solution will be recovered using carbon absorption technology to produce gold doré bars. A portion
of the enriched leach solution will also be treated to recover copper and cyanide and produce a copper sulphide precipitate. The copper
sulphide precipitate will be bagged and loaded onto highway haul trucks for shipment to market.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 343 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
The typical risks associated with open
pit mining related to dilution, geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions, equipment availability and productivity, and personnel productivity
are generally like those expected at other operations.
The ability to achieve the estimated
OPEX costs are important elements of project success. Investigation of cost reduction measures will mitigate over runs.
Crushing, leaching, and ADR plant performance
have all been designed using engineering analyses that are based on small but representative samples that may be different than actuality.
Ongoing consideration of potential variances in engineering assumptions during operations will mitigate risks.
Lower than expected metallurgical recovery
from either the sulphide ore or oxide ore is a potential risk. Additional sampling, test work, and operational experience will mitigate
risks.
| 25.3 | Tailings Management Facility |
The highlighted risks identified during
the feasibility study include:
| · | Geotechnical Foundation Conditions – There is a risk that the extent or depth of permafrost conditions
or other unsuitable materials in the foundations may be greater than currently anticipated, requiring more removal of material prior to
construction of the TMF embankments. This risk can be mitigated through additional geotechnical investigations. |
| · | Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Performance of the Cyclone Sand – There is a risk that cyclone
sand within the main embankment does not meet the geotechnical design criteria for drainage and strength at the specified range of fines
content. Industry experience and published literature support that the current assumptions in this study are reasonable; however, the
site-specific sampling and testing is limited. This risk will be mitigated through advanced laboratory testing of additional representative
tailings samples to determine the material parameters under high stresses and assess the influence of variability in the particle size
distribution. |
| · | Main Embankment Raises – There is a risk that the main embankment cannot be raised quickly enough
using the assumed construction methods, especially in the early years of operation when the required rate of rise is high. This risk will
be mitigated by more detailed staging of the raises and contingency plans for raising the dam using screened sand stockpiled in the winter
months. |
The key potential opportunities include:
| · | Potential to use mine waste rock and material excavated from the TMF embankment foundation in the starter
dam construction to reduce the reliance on a dedicated rock quarry for initial construction; this may reduce initial capital costs. |
| · | Potential to optimize the main embankment geometry if further geotechnical investigation, site characterization,
and cyclone sand testing identify more favorable conditions than currently assumed. |
| · | Potential to relax the maximum allowable fines content in the cyclone sand underflow to increase operation
flexibility and increase sand production. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 344 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Potential to optimize and reduce the volume of the initial foundation excavation for the Starter Dam through
additional site investigation and improved site characterization. |
| 25.4 | Exploration Interpretations |
From 2010 through 2021 a total of 173
diamond drill holes for 39,372.91 m were completed at the Casino and Canadian Creek properties. The 2019 and 2020 programs were the most
extensive, designed to upgrade the resource categories of portions of the deposit, and, in 2020, to test additional interpreted mineralized
zones, particularly the Gold, North Porphyry and Canadian (now called the Casino West) zones. In 2021, the program focused to resource
confirmation, metallurgical testing, and geotechnical holes in the eastern portion of the deposit area, including low-lying areas directly
east of Patton Hill. The 2021 program also included six exploration holes east and south of the Casino deposit.
The “Gold Zone” was delineated
along the southern and western margins of the deposit, covering an area of widely spaced narrow high-grade intercepts returned from 1992
– 1994 drilling by Pacific Sentinel, and from drilling by Western from 2008 – 2012 and 2019. One such occurrence, returning
55.1 g/t gold across 2.97 m including several specks of visible gold, was returned from DDH 19-21 within the theoretical Gold Zone. However,
drilling in 2020 did not intersect any significant high-grade zones, and the Gold Zone was determined not to be a discrete feature within
the deposit.
Drilling in 2020 at the potential North
Porphyry zone essentially disproved the presence of a second porphyry centre. Assay values for Cu, Mo, Au, and Ag progressively diminish
northward from the deposit core, and mineralization becomes increasingly vein-dominated and intermittent to the north. Drilling at the
Canadian zone returned low to background values in its southern extent, with metal values increasing somewhat northwards, towards Canadian
Creek. However, grades remained comparatively low, and the 2020 drilling did not result in significant expansion of the Casino deposit.
Detailed review of results to 2020 revealed
the presence of a “Deposit Core” area of increased Cu-Au grades occurring within intrusive breccias in the east-central property
area. The Deposit Core extends roughly NNW, centered on holes DDH20-05 and DDH20-08, from the crest of Patton Hill. This area was interpreted
in early 2021 as a potential target for initial ore extraction.
The 2021 drilling included several holes
east of, and topographically considerably lower than, the Deposit Core area on Patton Hill. Hole DDH21-09, a geotechnical hole, returned
a high-grade interval at shallow depths. The pathfinder signature shows weakly to moderately elevated As, Bi, Sb and Zn values, including
a narrow interval of strongly elevated Au-Ag-As-Bi-Sb values. This assemblage is indicative of fault-hosted hydrothermal mineralization.
This hole, as well as DDH21-07, is located along the interpreted trace of the Casino Fault, which may have acted as a conduit for late-phase
hydrothermal mineralization. The fault may have caused displacement of stratigraphy along its northeast side.
Soil sampling followed by XRF analysis
in the field identified three anomalies (Anomalies A through C) east and south of the main deposit. All three underwent exploration diamond
drilling and returned low to background Cu-Mo-Au-Ag values. Increased resolution during follow-up soil sampling may result in delineation
of more specific targets. Of the other three exploration holes, DDH21-14, the closest hole east of the deposit, returned a 54.35-metre
intercept of anomalous Au-Ag mineralization, with weakly elevated Cu and background Mo values. Highly anomalous As and Sb, and moderately
anomalous Bi values, indicate the mineralization is likely fault-controlled and of late-stage hydrothermal origin.
Analysis of lab assay results correlate
fairly well with those from XRF analysis in the field, indicating that XRF analysis may be used as a guide to immediate follow-up exploration.
The soil survey was incomplete when Anomalies A through C were drilled, with outlying areas still to be surveyed. Lab analyses revealed
three further anomalous areas: Anomaly D, in the extreme northeast corner; Anomaly E, along the northwest boundary, and Anomaly F, southeast
of the main deposit. Of these, only Anomaly F has a geochemical signature indicative of porphyry-style mineralization, comprising anomalous
Au-Ag-Cu-Mo values but lacking anomalous As values. This target has not been “ground-truthed” and warrants further detailed
exploration.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 345 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| 25.5 | Exploration Conclusions |
The following conclusions can be made
from the results of 2019 through 2021 diamond drilling, and the 2021 soil sampling program:
| · | The 2019, 2020 and 2021 programs comprised 39,372.91 m of diamond drilling completed on the Casino and
Canadian Creek properties. These drilling programs effectively delineated the extent of the Casino deposit. The 2021 drilling results
are not incorporated into this feasibility study. |
| · | The 2020 program focused on evaluating the potential presence of the Gold, North Porphyry and Canadian
(Casino West) zones. Results indicate the Canadian zone does not have significant mineral potential, and that there are no actual discrete
Gold and North Porphyry zones. |
| · | Results of drilling inclusive of 2020 indicate the presence of a “Deposit Core” of higher-grade
material in the east-central deposit area, both within the leached cap and underlying sulphide mineralized zones. This NNW-trending zone
may represent a target for initial mineral extraction. |
| · | The 2021 drilling included several holes east of, and topographically considerably lower than, Patton
Hill. Of these, hole DDH21-09 returned a high-grade CuEq interval that coincides with the surface trace of the Casino fault, indicating
the fault trace may represent a target for higher-grade mineralization within the deposit. |
| · | Individual samples of the 2021 soil sampling program were analyzed by a portable XRF unit, results of
which were determined to be sufficiently accurate to identify targets for follow-up exploration while still in the field. Three anomalies
were identified and underwent drilling, although no significant results were returned. |
| · | Lab analytical results for the soil sampling roughly support those from XRF analysis for base and pathfinder
elements. Lab results revealed three further anomalies, D through F, although only Anomaly F has a geochemical signature indicative of
porphyry-style Cu-Mo-Ag-Au mineralization. |
| · | Exploration hole DDH21-14 returned a 54.35 m intercept of anomalous Au-Ag values, likely representing
fault-controlled hydrothermally derived mineralization. The geochemical signature is indicative of outlying “Bonanza-style”
veining, although mineralization is of lower grade than typical Bonanza-style zones. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 346 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
26
Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, it
is recommended that the project advance into the execution planning phase and an application for environmental assessment under the Yukon
Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act be prepared to continue the permitting process.
| 26.1 | Metallurgy and Mineral Processing |
For the next stage of the project, detailed
mill specifications will be required and final design aspects, such as SAG discharge grate aperture size and type/number of shell lifters
should be considered. Also sizing details regarding the trommel screen and SAG discharge screen will be finalized. Additionally, simulations
relating to the pulp lifter depth will be required.
Makeup water requirements to the heap
leach and carbon column sizing are recommended to be evaluated with consideration given to evaporation, precipitation, ROM moisture, and
saturation moisture. It is recommended to perform additional column testing with finer crushed ore to validate metal recovery. It is recommended
to perform analysis of pregnant solution from leaching finer crushed ore to measure the metal concentrations to validate sizing of carbon
handling plant. Cost included with design consideration in section 26.2
It is recommended to perform SART testing
on leach solution to optimize size of SART plant equipment and confirm the consumption of reagents for the next phase of engineering.
It is also recommended to define the characteristics of the copper precipitate produced and market requirements.
The estimated cost for the above tests
is $100,000.
| 26.2 | Tailings Management Facility |
The following is a list of recommendations
for additional site investigations, test work and design studies for the TMF:
| · | Additional drilling and sampling of the overburden materials is recommended in the area of the TMF to
better define the composition and expected variability in material depths, particularly within the footprint of the TMF starter dam. |
| · | Preparation of a comprehensive site characterization report. |
| · | Updated laboratory testing to confirm the physical characteristics and assumed performance of the tailings
cyclones. The current assumptions are based on historical test work as new tailings were not available prior to initiation of this study. |
| · | Additional laboratory testing to confirm the physical characteristics of the cyclone sand (material classification,
strength, and permeability tests) is recommended. This should include strength and permeability tests at very high confining stresses,
representative of the height of the Main Embankment, and testing to examine the influence of cyclone sand fines content on available percentage
of sand recovery and the impact on permeability. |
| · | Investigate the feasibility of using waste rock to construct the TMF starter dam. |
| · | Laboratory testing to determine the physical characteristics of the PAG tailings (material classification,
slurry settling, consolidation and permeability tests). |
| · | Development of a detailed tailings and waste rock deposition strategy to optimize material handling, and
tailings discharge line and reclaim barge locations throughout operations. |
| · | Assessment of the sequencing of sand cell construction in relation to embankment raising requirements
to optimise material demand and placement strategies. |
| · | Carry out stress-deformation modelling for the main embankment once a suitable level of characterization
has been completed on the in-situ foundation and construction materials. |
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 347 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Update the hydrometeorology inputs for the TMF design as further studies are completed. |
| · | Update the seismic hazard analysis. |
| · | Basic engineering design of all civil earthworks and mechanical systems, including sumps, intakes, outlets,
pumps, pipe systems etc. |
The estimated cost for the above tailings
management facility recommendations is $3.5 M.
The following is a list of geotechnical
recommendations for additional site investigations, test work, and design studies for the HLF:
| · | Geotechnical Investigations and Test Work: |
| o | Additional test pits/drill holes to confirm assumptions and characterization of foundation and permafrost
conditions. |
| o | Additional test pits/drill holes to assess suitability, availability, and quantity of borrow materials
for earthworks construction. |
| o | Geotechnical laboratory testing of potential borrow materials for pad foundation (low permeability soil
layer) and confining embankment or events pond dam construction (including particle size distribution, Atterberg limits, specific gravity,
moisture-density relationship, permeability, and shear strength tests). |
| o | Laboratory direct shear testing of liner interfaces, to determine the interface shear strength relationships
for heap stability assessment. It is recommended that the shear strength tests are carried out for each of the liner interfaces within
the composite liner systems once the potential material sources have been confirmed. |
| o | Mineralized Material testing (including particle size distribution, specific gravity, permeability under
load, load-percolation, and direct shear/triaxial shear strength tests). |
| · | Design Studies and Analyses: |
| o | Leach testing to determine optimal mineralized material densities, leaching rates and resulting in-heap
moisture contents. |
| o | Detailed water balance analyses, based on results of hydrology and leach testing, to estimate solution
storage area water volumes, peak storm flows for ditch design, and to confirm sizing of pump and pipework systems. |
| o | Heap stability assessment based on results of laboratory shear strength and liner interface strength testing. |
| o | Seepage analyses to predict seepage flow patterns and solution losses for the design of the LDRS. |
| o | Basic engineering design of all civil and mechanical works, including sumps, intakes, outlets, pumps,
pipe systems etc. |
| o | Advanced studies on the staging and sequencing of mineralized material placement and development of the
HLF. |
The estimated
cost for the above heap leach facility recommendations is $800,000.
| 26.4 | Additional Facilities |
The following is a list of recommendations
for additional site investigations, test work, and design studies required to carry the additional facilities to final design and construction:
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 348 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
| · | Additional drilling and sampling of the overburden materials is recommended in the area of the Processing
facility to better define the composition and expected variability in material depths. |
| · | Additional drilling and sampling of the overburden materials is recommended in the area of the proposed
new airstrip to better define the composition and expected variability in material depths. |
The remaining exploration holes proposed
for 2021 are recommended to undergo drill testing, to the depths proposed. Additional holes targeting the surface strike projection of
the gold-silver enriched fault-controlled interval in DDH21-14 are also recommended.
Based on results from DDH21-09, further
drilling along the trace of the Casino Fault, particularly to the southeast, is also recommended, to a minimum depth of 300 m. Holes are
recommended to be oriented at azimuths of 060°, and dips of -60°. At least one exploration hole is recommended to be collared
about 100 m east of DDH21-09, to test for porphyry-style mineralization potentially offset by the Casino fault.
Detailed B-horizon soil sampling at a
100-metre line spacing and 50-metre station spacing are recommended for soil anomalies D, E and F. At Anomaly D, lines are recommended
to be oriented at 135° – 315°; at Anomaly E, they should be oriented north-south; and at Anomaly F the orientation should
be east-west. If funding permits, detailed B-horizon soil sampling at the same line and station spacing is also recommended for anomalies
A, B and C. Survey lines at Anomaly A and B are recommended to be oriented east-west, whereas lines at Anomaly C are recommended to be
oriented north-south.
The estimated cost for the above exploration
recommendations is CAD$854,000.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 349 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
27
References
AECOM Canada
Ltd. (AECOM). 2009. Casino Project: 2008 Environmental Studies Report. Western Copper Corporation, Burnaby, BC.
AMEC Environment
& Infrastructure (AMEC). 2014. Proposal for executive committee review: Socio-economic baseline report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC).
https://yesabregistry.ca/projects/815c7843-b66d-469f-b9d3-5b62e2c276d4/documents.
Barrera, S.,
Valenzuela, L., Campaña, J., 2011: Sand Tailings Dams: Design, Construction and Operation. Proceedings Tailings and Mine Waste
2011. Vancouver, BC, November 6 to 9, 2011
Bower, B.,
Case, T., DeLong, C., and Rebagliati, C.M., 1995: Casino Project 1994 Exploration and Geotechnical Drilling Program on the Casino Property
Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Deposit, Unpublished Company Report, Pacific Sentinel Gold Corp., May 1995.
Bower, B.,
DeLong, C., Payne, J., and Rebagliati, C.M., 1995a: The Oxide Gold, Supergene and Hypogene Zones at the Casino Property Copper-Gold-Molybdenum
Deposit, West-Central Yukon, Special Volume 46, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and petroleum, 1995.
Canadian Dam
Association (CDA). 2013. 2007 Dam Safety Guidelines – 2013 Revision. Toronto, ON.
Canadian Dam
Association (CDA). 2019. Technical Bulletin: Application of Dam Safety Guidelines to Mining Dams (2019 Edition). Toronto, ON.
Casino Mining
Corp. (CMC). 2014a. Project Proposal for Executive Committee Review: Section 12 Wildlife. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC). https://yesabregistry.ca/projects/815c7843-b66d-469f-b9d3-5b62e2c276d4/documents.
Casino Mining
Corp. (CMC). 2014b. Project Proposal for Executive Committee Review: Section 19 Land Use and Tenure. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC). https://yesabregistry.ca/projects/815c7843-b66d-469f-b9d3-5b62e2c276d4/documents.
Casino Mining
Corp. (CMC). 2014c. Project Proposal for Executive Committee Review: Section 7 Water Quality. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC). https://yesabregistry.ca/projects/815c7843-b66d-469f-b9d3-5b62e2c276d4/documents.
EDI Environmental
Dynamics Inc. 2013a. Casino Project: Bird Baseline Report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC by EDI, Whitehorse.
EDI Environmental
Dynamics Inc. 2013b. Casino Project: Vegetation baseline report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC by EDI, Whitehorse. https://casinomining.com/_resources/YESAA_Project_Proposal/Volume3/11A_Vegetation_Baseline_Report.pdf.
EDI Environmental
Dynamics Inc. 2014. Casino Project: Wildlife Baseline Report, Ver. 2. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC by EDI, Whitehorse.
EDI Environmental
Dynamics Inc. 2018. Casino Project Bat Baseline Study.
EDI Environmental
Dynamics Inc. 2020. 2017 Casino Project Grizzly Bear Spring and Fall Den Surveys. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Whitehorse, YT.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 350 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
FLSmidth. 2012. Casino Project Circuit
Design Basis – Update on Test work and Mill Sizing/Selection. 2012.
Hart, C.J.R.,
and Selby, D., 1997: “The Pattison Creek Pluton – a Mineralized Casino Intrusion made bigger with gamma rays”. In: Yukon
Exploration and Geology 1997, Exploration and Geological Services Division, Yukon. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, pp. 89-96, 1998
Hemmera (2022,
March 3 and 4). Casino Mine: ESE Workshop.
Huss, C.,
Drielick, Austin, J., Giroux, G., Casselman, S., Greenaway, G., Hester, M, Duke, J., 2013: Casino Project, Form 43-101 Technical Report,
Feasibility Study, Yukon, Canada. For: Western Copper and Gold Corp. By: M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation.
Johnston,
R.L., 2018: “Summary report of the 2017 Exploration Programme on the Canadian Creek Property, Whitehorse Mining District, Yukon
Territory”.
Johnston,
S.T., 1995: “Geological compilation with interpretation from geophysical surveys on the northern Dawson Range, central Yukon (115J/9
and 10; 115I/12) (1:100,000 scale map). Exploration and Geological Services Division, Yukon. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Open
File 1995-2 (G), 1995.
Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP). 2012.
Open Pit Geotechnical Design. October 12, 2012.
Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP, 2022a).
Tailings Management Facility Feasibility Design Report. Ref. No. VA101-325/27-5. July 27, 2022.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP). 2012a. Casino Copper-Gold Project – Feasibility Design of the Heap Leach Facility. Ref. No. VA101-325/8-9. Rev.0. December
18. Vancouver, BC.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2012a. Appendix A.4D: Report on the feasibility design of the tailings management facility. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC). https://casinomining.com/_resources/proposal/A.04D_Feasibility_Design_of_the__Tailings_Management_Facility.pdf.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP, 2022b). Heap Leach Feasibility Level Design Report. Ref. No. VA101-325/27-4. August 5, 2022.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP). 2012b. Casino Copper-Gold Project – 2011 Geotechnical Site Investigation Data Report – Waste Management Facilities.
Ref. No. VA101-325/8-5. Rev.0. December 21. Vancouver, BC.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2012b. Appendix A.4F: Waste storage area and stockpiles feasibility design. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC. https://casinomining.com/_resources/proposal/A.04F_Waste_Storage_Area_and_Stockpiles_Feasibility_Design.pdf.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP). 2012c. Casino Copper-Gold Project – Report on Feasibility Design of the Tailings Management Facility. Ref. No. VA101-325/8/10.
Rev 0. December 20, 2012. Vancouver, BC.Knight Piésold Ltd. (KP). 2013. Casino Project – Baseline Climate report. Ref. No.
VA101-325/14-7. Rev.0. June 14. Vancouver, BC.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2013a. Appendix 4C: Water management plan. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver. https://casinomining.com/_resources/YESAA_Project_Proposal/Volume2/4C_Water_Management_Plan.pdf
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 351 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2013b. Appendix 7B: Baseline Hydrology Report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC. https://casinomining.com/_resources/YESAA_Project_Proposal/Volume3/7B_Hydrology_Baseline_Report.pdf.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2013c. Appendix 7C: 2012 Baseline Hydrogeology Report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP). 2014. Casino Project – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing of Leach Ore. Ref. No. VA101-325/16-2. Rev.0. February 17. Vancouver,
BC.
Knight Piésold
Ltd. 2015. Appendix A.7M: 2013-2014 Groundwater Data Report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC. https://casinomining.com/_resources/proposal/A.07M_2013-2014_Groundwater_Data_Report.pdf
Knight Piésold
Ltd. (KP). 2015. Casino Project – 2014 and 2015 Geotechnical Testing of Leach Ore. Ref. No. VA101-325/18-1. Rev.0. October 30. Vancouver,
BC.
Lorax Environmental.
2015. Casino ML/ARD Management and Monitoring Plan. Casino Copper and Gold, Vancouver, BC. https://casinomining.com/_resources/proposal/A.22H__MLARD_Management_Plan.pdf
Mooney, J.
and Dale, J. 2014. Casino heritage resources summary report: Remaining areas to assessed and heritage resources to be managed. Ecofor
Consulting Ltd., Whitehorse, YT. https://yesabregistry.ca/projects/815c7843-b66d-469f-b9d3-5b62e2c276d4/documents
NatureServe.
2022. NatureServe Explorer. NatureServe. Available at https://explorer.natureserve.org/.
Palmer Environmental
Consulting Group Inc. (PECGI). 2011a. Casino Project: 2009 Aquatic Studies Report. Western Copper Corporation, Vancouver, BC.
Palmer Environmental
Consulting Group Inc. (PECGI). 2011b. Casino Project: 2010 Aquatic Studies Report. Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Vancouver, BC.
Palmer Environmental
Consulting Group Inc. (PECGI). 2013. Casino Project: 2012 Aquatic Studies Report. Casino Mining Corp. (CMC), Vancouver, BC.
Payne, J.G., Gonzalez, R.A., Akhurst,
K., and Sisson, W.G., 1987: “Geology of the Colorado Creek (115J/10), Selwyn River (115J/9), and Prospector Mountain (115I/5) Map
areas, Western Dawson range, west-central Yukon. Exploration and Geological Services Division, Yukon. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada,
Open File 1987-3, 1987.
Schulze, C.,
2021, Aurora Geosciences Ltd: 2021 Draft report, Casino Deposit Status and Recommendations, In-house report for Western Copper and Gold
Corp on the Casino Project. May 17, 2021.
Selby, D,
and Creaser, R.A., 2001: Late and Mid Cretaceous mineralization in the Northern Cordillera: Constraints from Re-Os molybdenum dates. Economic
Geology 96, pp 1461-1467.
Smith, C.A.S.,
J.C. Meikle, and C.F. Roots, Editors. 2004. Ecoregions of the Yukon Territory: Biophysical properties of Yukon landscapes. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Summerland, BC.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 352 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
Templeman-Kluit,
D.J., 1974: Reconnaissance geology of Aishihik lake, Snag and part of Stewart River map-areas, west-central Yukon. Department of Energy,
Mines and Resources; Geological Survey of Canada Paper 73-41, 97 p.
Williams,
W., 2021: Memo Re: Canadian Creek Exploration – Summary. In-house report for the Board of Directors, Western Copper, and Gold Corp.
Jan 29, 2021
Williams,
W., 2021: Memo Re: Casino Cu & Au Porphyry Deposit – Observations. In-house report for the Board of Directors, Western Copper,
and Gold Corp. Jan 27, 2021
Yukon Conservation
Data Centre (YCDC). 2019a. Yukon Conservation Data Centre Animal Track List. Government of Yukon, Department of Environment, Whitehorse,
YT. https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/env/env-cdc-animal-track-list.pdf.
Yukon Conservation
Data Centre (YCDC). 2019b. Yukon Conservation Data Centre Animal Watch List. Government of Yukon, Department of Environment, Whitehorse,
YT. https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/env/env-cdc-animal-watch-list.pdf.
Yukon Conservation
Data Centre (YCDC). 2019c. Yukon Conservation Data Centre vascular plant track list. Government of Yukon, Department of Environment, Whitehorse,
YT. https://yukon.ca/sites/yukon.ca/files/env/env-cdc-vascular-plant-track-list.pdf.
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| 353 |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
APPENDIX A
Feasibility Study Contributors and Professional
Qualifications
Certificate of Qualified Person (“QP”)
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| |
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Daniel Roth, P.E., P. Eng. do hereby
certify that:
| 1. | I am currently employed as a project manager
and civil engineer at M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. located at 2051 West Sunset Rd, Suite 101, Tucson, AZ 85704. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I graduated with a Bachelor of Science
degree in Civil Engineering from The University of Manitoba in 1990. |
| 4. | I am a registered professional engineer
in good standing in the following jurisdictions: |
| · | Yukon, Canada (No. 1998) |
| · | British Columbia, Canada (No. 38037) |
| · | Alberta, Canada (No. 62310) |
| · | Ontario, Canada (No. 100156213) |
| · | New Mexico, USA (No. 17342) |
| · | Arizona, USA (No. 37319) |
| · | Alaska, USA (No. 102317) |
| · | Minnesota, USA (No. 54138) |
| · | Nevada, USA (No. 029423) |
| 5. | I have worked continuously as a design
engineer, engineering, and project manager since 1990, a period of 30 years. I have worked in the minerals industry as a project manager
for M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation since 2003, with extensive experience in hard rock mine process plant and infrastructure
design and construction, environmental permitting review, as well as development of capital cost estimates, operating cost estimates,
financial analyses, preliminary economic assessments, pre-feasibility, and feasibility studies. |
| 6. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified
person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 7. | I am responsible for Sections 1,1.1-1.4,
1.14.1, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.19, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 18.1-18.4, 18.9, 18.10, 19, 21 (except 21.1.5, 21.3.1 and 21.3.3), 22, 24, 26, 26.4 and
corresponding section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 8. | I have prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have developed various capital and operating cost tradeoff studies for Western from 2014
through 2020. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report,
Mineral Resource Statement, Yukon, Canada” dated effective July 3, 2020 and the technical report of Western entitled “Casino
Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated effective June 22, 2021. I visited
the property that is the subject of the Technical Report on August 6, 2021 for one day. |
| 9. | As of the date of this certificate, 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. |
| 10. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 11. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
Dated this 8 day of August, 2022.
“Signed”
Signature of Qualified Person
Daniel Roth
Print Name of Qualified Person
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Michael G. Hester, do hereby certify that:
| 1. | I am currently employed as Vice President
and Principal Mining Engineer by Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (“IMC”) of 3560 E. Gas Road, Tucson, Arizona, 84714,
USA. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I graduated with a Bachelor of Science
degree in Mining Engineering from the University of Arizona in 1979 and a Master of Science degree in Mining Engineering from the University
of Arizona in 1982. |
| 4. | I am a Fellow of the Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy (FAusIMM #221108), a professional association as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure
for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). |
| 5. | I have worked in the minerals industry
as an engineer continuously since 1979, a period of 43 years. I am a founding partner, Vice President, and Principal Mining Engineer for
IMC, a position I have held since 1983. I have been employed as an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Arizona (1997-1998) where I taught
classes in open pit mine planning and mine economic analysis. I have also been a member of the Resources and Reserves Committee of the
Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration since March 2012. During my career I have had extensive experience developing mineral resource
models, developing open pit mine plans, estimating equipment requirements for open pit mining operations, developing mine capital and
operating cost estimates, performing economic analysis of mining operations and managing various preliminary economic assessments, pre-feasibility,
and feasibility studies. I have extensive experience with large open pit base metal mines and with large copper-gold porphyry geologic
systems similar to the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. |
| 6. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in NI 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined
in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of
NI 43-101. |
| 7. | I am responsible for Section 1.9, 14, and
corresponding parts of section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 8. | I have prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project,
Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Mineral Resource Statement, Yukon, Canada” dated effective July 3, 2020 and the technical report
of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated
effective June 22, 2021. I was also a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1
Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon, Canada” dated effective January 23, 2013 and the technical reports of Western Copper
Corporation entitled “Casino Project, NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-Feasibility Study Update, Yukon Territory, Canada” dated
April 29, 2011 and “Technical Report, Casino Project Pre-Feasibility Study, Yukon Territory, Canada” dated August 5, 2008.
I also worked on studies of the property for Pacific Sentinel Corporation in or around September 1995. I most recently inspected the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report on September 7, 2021, for a period of one day. |
| 9. | As of the date of this certificate, 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. |
| 10. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 11. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
Dated this 08 day of August 2022.
“Signed”
Signature of Qualified Person
Michael G. Hester, FAusIMM
Print Name of Qualified Person
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, John M. Marek P.E. do hereby certify that:
| a) | I am currently employed as the President
and a Senior Mining Engineer by: |
Independent Mining Consultants,
Inc.
3560 E. Gas Road
Tucson, Arizona, USA 85714
| b) | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of 13 June 2022, (the “Technical
Report”). |
| c) | I graduated with the following degrees
from the Colorado School of Mines: |
| · | Bachelors of Science, Mineral Engineering
– Physics – 1974 |
| · | Masters of Science, Mining Engineering
– 1976 |
| d) | I am a member of the following professional
associations as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”): |
| · | I am a Registered Professional Mining Engineer
in the State of Arizona, USA – Registration # 12772 |
| · | I am a Registered Professional Engineer
in the State of Colorado, USA – Registration # 16191 |
| · | I am a Professional Engineer, Yukon Territory,
Canada. |
| · | I am a Professional Engineer, Ontario Province,
Canada. |
| · | I am a Registered Member of the American
Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Society of Mining Engineers |
I have worked as a mining engineer,
geoscientist, and reserve estimation specialist for more than 46 years. My work experience includes mine planning, equipment selection,
mine cost estimation and mine feasibility studies for base and precious metals projects worldwide for over 46 years. I have extensive
experience with large open pit base metal mines and with large copper-gold porphyry geologic systems similar to the property that is the
subject of the Technical Report.
| e) | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in NI 43-101 and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined
in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of
NI 43-101. |
| f) | I visited the property that is the subject
of the Technical Report on September 7, 2021 for one day. |
| g) | I am responsible for sections 1.10, 1.11,
15, 16, 21.1.5, 21.3.3, 25.1 and the corresponding components of section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| h) | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101. |
| i) | I have prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project,
Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated effective June 22, 2021. |
CERTIFICATE
OF QUALIFIED PERSON
| j) | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
| k) | As of the effective date of the 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. |
Dated: August 08, 2022
Signed and Sealed
John M. Marek
Professional Engineer
Yukon Territory
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Laurie M. Tahija, MMSA-Q.P. do hereby
certify that:
| 1. | I am currently employed as Senior Vice
President by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, 2051 W. Sunset Road, Ste. 101, Tucson, Arizona 85704, USA. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I am a graduate of Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology, in Butte, Montana and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mineral Processing Engineering in 1981. I have
practiced mineral processing for 40 years. I have over twenty (20) years of plant operations and project management experience at a variety
of mines including both precious metals and base metals. I have worked both in the United States (Nevada, Idaho, California) and overseas
(Papua New Guinea, China, Chile, Mexico) at existing operations and at new operations during construction and startup. My operating experience
in base metal processing includes copper heap leaching with SX/EW and zinc recovery using ion exchange, SX/EW, and casting. My operating
experience in precious metals processing includes heap leaching, agitation leaching, gravity, flotation, Merrill-Crowe, and ADR (CIC &
CIL). I have been responsible for process design for new plants and the retrofitting of existing operations. I have been involved in projects
from construction to startup and continuing into operation. I have worked on scoping, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for mining
projects in the United States and Latin America, as well as worked on the design and construction phases of some of these projects. |
| 4. | I am recognized as a Qualified Professional
(QP) member (#01399QP) with special expertise in Metallurgy/Processing by the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (MMSA). |
| 5. | I have not visited the property that is
the subject of the Technical Report. |
| 6. | I am responsible for Sections 1.12, 1.13,
13, 17, 21.3.1, 25.2, 26.1 and corresponding section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 7. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 8. | I have prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project,
Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Mineral Resource Statement, Yukon, Canada” dated effective July 3, 2020, and the technical report
of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated
effective June 22, 2021. |
| 9. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in National instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified
person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 10. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
| 11. | As of the date of this certificate, 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. |
Dated this 08 day of August 2022.
“Signed”
Signature of Qualified Person
Laurie M. Tahija
Print Name of Qualified Person
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Carl Schulze, P. Geo. with a business address at 34A Laberge
Rd, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5Y9, hereby certify that:
| 1. | I am a Project Manager employed by: Aurora
Geosciences Ltd., 34A Laberge Rd, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5Y9. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report titled: “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon, Canada”
prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I am a graduate of Lakehead University,
Bachelor of Science Degree in Geology, 1984. I am a member in good standing of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists
of British Columbia (EGBC), Lic. No. 25393. I have worked as a geologist for a total of 38 years since my graduation from Lakehead University.
I have worked extensively in Yukon, British Columbia, northern Ontario, and Alaska, as well as the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan,
and Manitoba. Specifically, I have worked on copper-molybdenum-silver-gold porphyry-style deposits and prospects in Yukon and British
Columbia. I served as President of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, where I was also a Director from 2003 to 2015. I have acted in various
capacities with numerous private and publicly-traded mining and exploration companies, and also served as the Resident Geologist for the
Government of Nunavut from 2000 to 2002. |
| 4. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified
person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 5. | I performed a site visit of the property
that is subject of the Technical Report for 18 days from September 9, 2020 through September 26, 2020. I was also on site for 13 days
from May 21 to June 3, and for 22 days from June 10 to July 1, 2021. |
| 6. | I am responsible for Sections 1.4-1.8,
1.18, 1.19, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 25.4, 25.5, 26.5 and 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 7. | I have prior involvement with the property
that is subject of the Technical Report. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project,
Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Mineral Resource Statement, Yukon, Canada” dated effective July 3, 2020 and the technical report
of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated
effective June 22, 2021. |
| 8. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
applying the test in section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 9. | I have read NI 43-101and Form 43-101F1,
and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for has been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form; |
| 10. | As of the date of this certificate, to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for contain all scientific
and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading, and; |
Dated at Whitehorse, Yukon this 08 day of August 2022.
Signature of Qualified Person
Carl Schulze
Name of Qualified Person
Certificate
of Qualified Person
I, Daniel Friedman, P. Eng.
do hereby certify that:
| 1. | This certificate applies to the technical report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation,
Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon, Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation
(the “Issuer”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical Report”) |
| 2. | I am employed as a Specialist Civil Engineer of Knight Piésold Ltd. with an office at Suite 1400
– 750 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2T8, Canada. |
| 3. | I am a graduate of McGill University, Montreal, Canada, B.Eng. (Civil), 2003. I have practiced my profession
continuously since 2004. My principal experience is in the areas of water and waste management for mining projects, including open pit
copper-gold projects, and hydrotechnical engineering. |
| 4. | I am a registered professional engineer in good standing in the following jurisdictions: |
| · | Yukon, Canada (No. 3404) |
| · | British Columbia, Canada (No. 32571) |
| · | New Brunswick, Canada (No. L5001) |
| · | Arizona, USA (No. 53722) |
| 5. | I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI
43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past
relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 6. | I have not visited the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. |
| 7. | I am responsible for Sections 1.14.6, 1.14.7, 18.7, 18.8, 25.3, 26.2, 26.3, and corresponding section
27 of the Technical Report and accept professional responsibility for these sections of the Technical Report. |
| 8. | I am independent of the Issuer and related companies applying all of the tests in Section 1.5 of the NI
43-101. |
| 9. | I have prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have developed
various engineering studies related to tailings and water management for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) from
2016 through 2021. I was a qualified person for the technical report of Western entitled “Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical
Report, Preliminary Economic Assessment, Yukon, Canada” dated effective June 22, 2021. |
| 10. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible
for have been prepared in accordance with that instrument and form. |
| |
| 1 of 2 |
Knight Piésold Ltd. | Suite 1400 - 750 West Pender Street | Vancouver, British Columbia | Canada, V6C 2T8 |
| |
T +1 604 685 0543 | E vancouver@knightpiesold.com | www.knightpiesold.com |
| 11. | As of the effective date of this Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief,
the sections of the Technical Report for which I am responsible contain all scientific and technical information that is required to be
disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading. |
Effective Date: June 13,
2022
Signing Date: August 8, 2022
| Signed |
| Daniel Friedman, P.Eng. |
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Patrick W. Dugan, P.E. do hereby certify
that:
| 1. | I am currently employed as Piping Quality
Control Manager at M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. located at 2051 West Sunset Rd, Suite 101, Tucson, AZ 85704. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I graduated with a Bachelor of Science
degree in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Arizona in 1972. I completed 24 graduate units in Physical Metallurgy from the
University of Arizona 1972 -1974. Master’s program not completed. |
| 4. | I am a registered professional engineer
in good standing in the following jurisdictions: |
| · | Arizona, USA (No. 15308) |
| 5. | I have worked continuously as a design
engineer, construction engineer, engineering manager and project manager since 1974, a period of 48 years. I have worked in the minerals
industry since 1979, a period of 43 years. I have been involved in design, startup and construction of uranium, precious metal, and base
metal projects. I have worked on projects in the US (Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, and South Carolina)
and Overseas (Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, and Serbia). I have designed tailings
disposal pipelines and pump station systems for plants from 10,000 TPD to 150,000 TPD. My experience in power includes construction management
for a 350 MW coal fired power plant and management of piping design and construction assistance for several simple cycle and combined
cycle natural gas fire power stations including a 350 MW combined cycle plant in California. I have also been involved in numerous retrofit
projects for waster heat boiler power stations at several smelters in the US (Arizona and New Mexico.). I have been involved in numerous
scoping, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for mineral projects in the US, Mexico, South America and the middle east over the last
40 years. |
| 6. | I have been a member of Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration (SME) since 1983. |
| 7. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified
person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 8. | I am responsible for Sections 1.14.2-1.14.5,
18.5, 18.6 and corresponding section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 9. | I have prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have assisted in development of various water supply and tailing disposal designs and was
involved in the initial specifications and vendor selection for the combined cycle power plant to be constructed at the site for Western
from 2012 through 2020. I have not visited the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. |
| 10. | As of the date of this certificate, 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. |
| 11. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 12. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
Dated this 08 day of August 2022.
“Signed”
Signature of Qualified Person
Patrick W Dugan P.E.
Print Name of Qualified Person
CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Scott Weston, P.Geo., do hereby certify
that:
| 1. | I am employed as Vice President, Business
Development and Strategy with Hemmera Envirochem Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ausenco Canada (“Ausenco”), with an office
address of 4515 Central Boulevard, Burnaby, BC, Canada. |
| 2. | This certificate applies to the technical
report entitled, “Western Copper and Gold Corporation, Casino Project, Form 43-101F1 Technical Report, Feasibility Study, Yukon,
Canada” prepared for Western Copper and Gold Corporation (“Western”) with an effective date of June 13, 2022 (the “Technical
Report”). |
| 3. | I graduated from University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1995 with a Bachelor of Science, Physical Geography, and Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada,
2003 with a Master of Science, Environment and Management. |
| 4. | I am a Professional Geoscientist of Engineers
and Geoscientists British Columbia; 124888. |
| 5. | I have practiced my profession for 25 years
as an environmental consultant in Canada and the Americas. I have a long history of working in Yukon. This provides me a strong understanding
of Yukon biophysical and social situations, analysis and interpretation of baseline data, and Yukon regulatory processes. |
| 6. | I have read the definition of “qualified
person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association (as defined in NI 43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified
person” for the purposes of NI 43-101. |
| 7. | I am responsible for Section 20 and corresponding
section 27 of the Technical Report. |
| 8. | I have no prior involvement with the property
that is the subject of the Technical Report. I have not visited the property that is the subject of the Technical Report. |
| 9. | As of the date of this certificate, 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. |
| 10. | I am independent of Western and its subsidiaries
as defined by Section 1.5 of NI 43-101. |
| 11. | I have read NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
The sections of the Technical Report that I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form. |
Dated this 08 day of August 2022.
“Signed”
Scott Weston, P. Geo.
Casino Project Form 43-101F1 Technical Report |
APPENDIX B
List of Claims
| | M3-PN200352
08 August 2022
Revision 0
| |
Casino Property
List of Casino Placer
Claims
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp |
| # |
GRANT
NUMBER |
TENURE
TYPE |
CLAIM
NAME |
CLAIM
NUMBER |
RECORDED DATE |
EXPIRY DATE |
| 1 |
P 508065 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
4 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 2 |
P 508066 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
5 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 3 |
P 508067 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
6 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 4 |
P 508068 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
7 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 5 |
P 508069 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
8 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 6 |
P 508070 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
9 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 7 |
P 508071 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
10 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 8 |
P 508072 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
11 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 9 |
P 508073 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
12 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 10 |
P 508074 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
13 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 11 |
P 508075 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
14 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 12 |
P 508076 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
15 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 13 |
P 508077 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
16 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 14 |
P 508078 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
17 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 15 |
P 508079 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
18 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 16 |
P 508080 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
19 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 17 |
P 508081 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
20 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 18 |
P 508082 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
21 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 19 |
P 508083 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
22 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 20 |
P 508084 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
23 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 21 |
P 508085 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
24 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 22 |
P 508086 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
25 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 23 |
P 508087 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
26 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 24 |
P 508088 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
27 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 25 |
P 508089 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
28 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 26 |
P 508090 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
29 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 27 |
P 508091 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
30 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 28 |
P 508092 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
31 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 29 |
P 508093 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
32 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 30 |
P 508094 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
33 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 31 |
P 508095 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
34 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 32 |
P 508096 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
35 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 33 |
P 508097 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
36 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 34 |
P 508098 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
37 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 35 |
P 508099 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
38 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 36 |
P 508100 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
39 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 37 |
P 509301 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
40 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 38 |
P 509302 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
41 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 39 |
P 509303 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
42 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 40 |
P 509304 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
43 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 41 |
P 509305 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
44 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 42 |
P 509306 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
45 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 43 |
P 509307 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
46 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 44 |
P 509308 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
47 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 45 |
P 509309 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
48 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 46 |
P 509310 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
49 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 47 |
P 509311 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
50 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 48 |
P 509312 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
51 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 49 |
P 509313 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
52 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 50 |
P 509314 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
53 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 51 |
P 509315 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
54 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 52 |
P 509316 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
55 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 53 |
P 509317 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
56 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 54 |
P 509318 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
57 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
| 55 |
P 509319 |
Placer |
CAS PL |
58 |
2011-08-11 |
2022-02-11 |
Casino Property
List of Casino Quartz
Claims
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 1 |
95740 |
CAT |
63 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 2 |
95741 |
CAT |
64 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 3 |
95742 |
CAT |
65 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 4 |
95743 |
CAT |
66 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 5 |
95745 |
CAT |
68 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 6 |
95747 |
CAT |
70 |
1965-12-05 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 7 |
Y 35195 |
MOUSE |
4 |
1969-06-04 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 8 |
Y 35197 |
MOUSE |
6 |
1969-06-04 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 9 |
Y 35484 |
MOUSE |
90 |
1969-06-22 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 10 |
YD04376 |
FLY |
2 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 11 |
YD04377 |
FLY |
3 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 12 |
YD04378 |
FLY |
4 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 13 |
YD04379 |
FLY |
5 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 14 |
YD04380 |
FLY |
6 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 15 |
YD04381 |
FLY |
7 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 16 |
YD04382 |
FLY |
8 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 17 |
YD04383 |
FLY |
9 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 18 |
YD04384 |
FLY |
10 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 19 |
YD04385 |
FLY |
11 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 20 |
YD04386 |
FLY |
12 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 21 |
YD04387 |
FLY |
13 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 22 |
YD04388 |
FLY |
14 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 23 |
YD04399 |
FLY |
15 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 24 |
YD04400 |
FLY |
16 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 25 |
YD04401 |
FLY |
17 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 26 |
YD04402 |
FLY |
18 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 27 |
YD04375 |
FLY |
1 |
2011-02-02 |
2025-03-26 |
115J10 |
|
| 28 |
YC82855 |
BL |
1 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 29 |
YC82856 |
BL |
2 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 30 |
YC82857 |
BL |
3 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 31 |
YC82858 |
BL |
4 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 32 |
YC82859 |
BL |
5 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 33 |
YC82860 |
BL |
6 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 34 |
YC82861 |
BL |
7 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 35 |
YC82862 |
BL |
8 |
2008-07-31 |
2025-08-01 |
105 E12 |
|
| 36 |
YE94141 |
CAS19 |
1 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 37 |
YE94142 |
CAS19 |
2 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 38 |
YE94143 |
CAS19 |
3 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 39 |
YE94144 |
CAS19 |
4 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 40 |
YE94145 |
CAS19 |
5 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 41 |
YE94146 |
CAS19 |
6 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 42 |
YE94147 |
CAS19 |
7 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 43 |
YE94148 |
CAS19 |
8 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 44 |
YE94149 |
CAS19 |
9 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 45 |
YE94150 |
CAS19 |
10 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 46 |
YE94151 |
CAS19 |
11 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 47 |
YE94152 |
CAS19 |
12 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 48 |
YE94153 |
CAS19 |
13 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 49 |
YE94154 |
CAS19 |
14 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 50 |
YE94155 |
CAS19 |
15 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 51 |
YE94156 |
CAS19 |
16 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 52 |
YE94157 |
CAS19 |
17 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 53 |
YE94158 |
CAS19 |
18 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 54 |
YE94159 |
CAS19 |
19 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 55 |
YE94160 |
CAS19 |
20 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 56 |
YE94161 |
CAS19 |
21 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 57 |
YE94162 |
CAS19 |
22 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 58 |
YE94163 |
CAS19 |
23 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 59 |
YE94164 |
CAS19 |
24 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 60 |
YE94165 |
CAS19 |
25 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 61 |
YE94166 |
CAS19 |
26 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 62 |
YE94167 |
CAS19 |
27 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 63 |
YE94168 |
CAS19 |
28 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 64 |
YE94169 |
CAS19 |
29 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 65 |
YE94170 |
CAS19 |
30 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 66 |
YE94171 |
CAS19 |
31 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 67 |
YE94172 |
CAS19 |
32 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 68 |
YE94173 |
CAS19 |
33 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 69 |
YE94174 |
CAS19 |
34 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 70 |
YE94175 |
CAS19 |
35 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 71 |
YE94176 |
CAS19 |
36 |
2019-08-28 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 72 |
YE94177 |
CAS19 |
37 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 73 |
YE94178 |
CAS19 |
38 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 74 |
YE94179 |
CAS19 |
39 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 75 |
YE94180 |
CAS19 |
40 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 76 |
YE94181 |
CAS19 |
41 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 77 |
YE94182 |
CAS19 |
42 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 78 |
YE94183 |
CAS19 |
43 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 79 |
YE94184 |
CAS19 |
44 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 80 |
YE94185 |
CAS19 |
45 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 81 |
YE94186 |
CAS19 |
46 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 82 |
YE94187 |
CAS19 |
47 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 83 |
YE94188 |
CAS19 |
48 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 84 |
YE94189 |
CAS19 |
49 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 85 |
YE94190 |
CAS19 |
50 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 86 |
YE94191 |
CAS19 |
51 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 87 |
YE94192 |
CAS19 |
52 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
|
| 88 |
YE94193 |
CAS19 |
53 |
2019-08-27 |
2025-09-03 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 89 |
YC99925 |
KANA |
46 |
2010-06-05 |
2026-06-08 |
115J15 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 90 |
YB37540 |
AZTEC |
1 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 91 |
YB37541 |
AZTEC |
2 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 92 |
YB37542 |
AZTEC |
3 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 93 |
YB37543 |
AZTEC |
4 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 94 |
YB37544 |
AZTEC |
5 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 95 |
YB37545 |
AZTEC |
6 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 96 |
YB37546 |
AZTEC |
7 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 97 |
YB37547 |
AZTEC |
8 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 98 |
YB37548 |
AZTEC |
9 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 99 |
YB37549 |
AZTEC |
10 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 100 |
YB37622 |
MAYA |
31 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 101 |
YB37623 |
MAYA |
32 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 102 |
YB37624 |
MAYA |
33 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 103 |
YB37625 |
MAYA |
34 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 104 |
YB37626 |
MAYA |
35 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 105 |
YB37627 |
MAYA |
36 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 106 |
YB37628 |
MAYA |
37 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 107 |
YB37629 |
MAYA |
38 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 108 |
YB37630 |
MAYA |
39 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 109 |
YB37631 |
MAYA |
40 |
1992-09-12 |
2026-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 110 |
YC99915 |
KANA |
37 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 111 |
YC99916 |
KANA |
38 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 112 |
YC99917 |
KANA |
39 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 113 |
YC99918 |
KANA |
40 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 114 |
YC99919 |
KANA |
41 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 115 |
YC99920 |
KANA |
42 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 116 |
YC99921 |
KANA |
43 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 117 |
YC99922 |
KANA |
44 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 118 |
YC99923 |
KANA |
45 |
2009-09-01 |
2026-09-29 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 119 |
YB37830 |
ICE |
30 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 120 |
YB37831 |
ICE |
31 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 121 |
YB37832 |
ICE |
32 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 122 |
YB37833 |
ICE |
33 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 123 |
YB37841 |
ICE |
41 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 124 |
YB37842 |
ICE |
42 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 125 |
YB37843 |
ICE |
43 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 126 |
YB37844 |
ICE |
44 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 127 |
YB37845 |
ICE |
45 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 128 |
YB37846 |
ICE |
46 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 129 |
YB37847 |
ICE |
47 |
1993-01-22 |
2027-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 130 |
YD17559 |
AXS |
1 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 131 |
YD17560 |
AXS |
2 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 132 |
YD17561 |
AXS |
3 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 133 |
YD17562 |
AXS |
4 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 134 |
YD17563 |
AXS |
5 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 135 |
YD17564 |
AXS |
6 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 136 |
YD17565 |
AXS |
7 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 137 |
YD17566 |
AXS |
8 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 138 |
YD17567 |
AXS |
9 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 139 |
YD17568 |
AXS |
10 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 140 |
YD17569 |
AXS |
11 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 141 |
YD17570 |
AXS |
12 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 142 |
YD17571 |
AXS |
13 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 143 |
YD17572 |
AXS |
14 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 144 |
YD17573 |
AXS |
15 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 145 |
YD17574 |
AXS |
16 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 146 |
YD17575 |
AXS |
17 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 147 |
YD17576 |
AXS |
18 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 148 |
YD17577 |
AXS |
19 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 149 |
YD17578 |
AXS |
20 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 150 |
YD17579 |
AXS |
21 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 151 |
YD17580 |
AXS |
22 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 152 |
YD17581 |
AXS |
23 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 153 |
YD17582 |
AXS |
24 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 154 |
YD17583 |
AXS |
25 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 155 |
YD17584 |
AXS |
26 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 156 |
YD17585 |
AXS |
27 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 157 |
YD17586 |
AXS |
28 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 158 |
YD17587 |
AXS |
29 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 159 |
YD17588 |
AXS |
30 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 160 |
YD17589 |
AXS |
31 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 161 |
YD17590 |
AXS |
32 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 162 |
YD17591 |
AXS |
33 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 163 |
YD17592 |
AXS |
34 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 164 |
YD17593 |
AXS |
35 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 165 |
YD17594 |
AXS |
36 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 166 |
YD17595 |
AXS |
37 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 167 |
YD17596 |
AXS |
38 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 168 |
YD17597 |
AXS |
39 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 169 |
YD17598 |
AXS |
40 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 170 |
YD17599 |
AXS |
41 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 171 |
YD17600 |
AXS |
42 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 172 |
YD17601 |
AXS |
43 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 173 |
YD17602 |
AXS |
44 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 174 |
YD17603 |
AXS |
45 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 175 |
YD17604 |
AXS |
46 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 176 |
YD17605 |
AXS |
47 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 177 |
YD17606 |
AXS |
48 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 178 |
YD17607 |
AXS |
49 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 179 |
YD17608 |
AXS |
50 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 180 |
YD17609 |
AXS |
51 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 181 |
YD17610 |
AXS |
52 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 182 |
YD17611 |
AXS |
53 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 183 |
YD17612 |
AXS |
54 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 184 |
YD17613 |
AXS |
55 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 185 |
YD17614 |
AXS |
56 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 186 |
YD17615 |
AXS |
57 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 187 |
YD17616 |
AXS |
58 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 188 |
YD17617 |
AXS |
59 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 189 |
YD17618 |
AXS |
60 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 190 |
YD17619 |
AXS |
61 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 191 |
YD17620 |
AXS |
62 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 192 |
YD17621 |
AXS |
63 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 193 |
YD17622 |
AXS |
64 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 194 |
YD17623 |
AXS |
65 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 195 |
YD17624 |
AXS |
66 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 196 |
YD17625 |
AXS |
67 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 197 |
YD17626 |
AXS |
68 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 198 |
YD17627 |
AXS |
69 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 199 |
YD17628 |
AXS |
70 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 200 |
YD17629 |
AXS |
71 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 201 |
YD17630 |
AXS |
72 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 202 |
YD17631 |
AXS |
73 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 203 |
YD17632 |
AXS |
74 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 204 |
YD17633 |
AXS |
75 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 205 |
YD17634 |
AXS |
76 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 206 |
YD17635 |
AXS |
77 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 207 |
YD17636 |
AXS |
78 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 208 |
YD17637 |
AXS |
79 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 209 |
YD17638 |
AXS |
80 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 210 |
YD17639 |
AXS |
81 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 211 |
YD17640 |
AXS |
82 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 212 |
YD17641 |
AXS |
83 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 213 |
YD17642 |
AXS |
84 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 214 |
YD17643 |
AXS |
85 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 215 |
YD17644 |
AXS |
86 |
2009-10-05 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 216 |
YD17645 |
AXS |
87 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 217 |
YD17646 |
AXS |
88 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 218 |
YD17647 |
AXS |
89 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 219 |
YD17648 |
AXS |
90 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 220 |
YD17649 |
AXS |
91 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 221 |
YD17650 |
AXS |
92 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 222 |
YD17651 |
AXS |
103 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 223 |
YD17652 |
AXS |
102 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 224 |
YD17653 |
AXS |
101 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 225 |
YD17654 |
AXS |
100 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 226 |
YD17655 |
AXS |
99 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 227 |
YD17656 |
AXS |
98 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 228 |
YD17657 |
AXS |
97 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 229 |
YD17658 |
AXS |
96 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 230 |
YD17659 |
AXS |
95 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 231 |
YD17660 |
AXS |
94 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 232 |
YD17661 |
AXS |
93 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J16 |
|
| 233 |
YD17662 |
AXS |
104 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 234 |
YD17663 |
AXS |
105 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 235 |
YD17664 |
AXS |
106 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 236 |
YD17665 |
AXS |
107 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 237 |
YD17666 |
AXS |
108 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 238 |
YD17667 |
AXS |
109 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 239 |
YD17668 |
AXS |
110 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 240 |
YD17669 |
AXS |
111 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 241 |
YD17670 |
AXS |
112 |
2009-10-07 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 242 |
YD17694 |
AXS |
136 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 243 |
YD17671 |
AXS |
113 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 244 |
YD17672 |
AXS |
114 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 245 |
YD17673 |
AXS |
115 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 246 |
YD17674 |
AXS |
116 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 247 |
YD17675 |
AXS |
117 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 248 |
YD17676 |
AXS |
118 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 249 |
YD17677 |
AXS |
119 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 250 |
YD17678 |
AXS |
120 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 251 |
YD17679 |
AXS |
121 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 252 |
YD17680 |
AXS |
122 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 253 |
YD17681 |
AXS |
123 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 254 |
YD17682 |
AXS |
124 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 255 |
YD17683 |
AXS |
125 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 256 |
YD17684 |
AXS |
126 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 257 |
YD17685 |
AXS |
127 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 258 |
YD17686 |
AXS |
128 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 259 |
YD17687 |
AXS |
129 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 260 |
YD17688 |
AXS |
130 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 261 |
YD17689 |
AXS |
131 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 262 |
YD17690 |
AXS |
132 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 263 |
YD17691 |
AXS |
133 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 264 |
YD17692 |
AXS |
134 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 265 |
YD17693 |
AXS |
135 |
2009-10-06 |
2027-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 266 |
YD08825 |
BERG |
3 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 267 |
YD08824 |
BERG |
4 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 268 |
YD08823 |
BERG |
5 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 269 |
YD08822 |
BERG |
6 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 270 |
YD08821 |
BERG |
7 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 271 |
YD08820 |
BERG |
8 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 272 |
YD08819 |
BERG |
9 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 273 |
YD08818 |
BERG |
10 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 274 |
YD08817 |
BERG |
11 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 275 |
YD08816 |
BERG |
12 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 276 |
YD08815 |
BERG |
13 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 277 |
YD08814 |
BERG |
14 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 278 |
YD08813 |
BERG |
15 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 279 |
YD08812 |
BERG |
16 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 280 |
YD08811 |
BERG |
17 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 281 |
YD08810 |
BERG |
18 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 282 |
YD08809 |
BERG |
19 |
2010-06-07 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 283 |
YD08808 |
BERG |
20 |
2010-06-07 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 284 |
YD08807 |
BERG |
21 |
2010-06-07 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 285 |
YD08806 |
BERG |
22 |
2010-06-07 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 286 |
YD08827 |
BERG |
27 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 287 |
YD08828 |
BERG |
28 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 288 |
YD08829 |
BERG |
29 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 289 |
YD08830 |
BERG |
30 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 290 |
YD08831 |
BERG |
31 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 291 |
YD08832 |
BERG |
32 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 292 |
YD08833 |
BERG |
33 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 293 |
YD08834 |
BERG |
34 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 294 |
YD08835 |
BERG |
35 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 295 |
YD08836 |
BERG |
36 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 296 |
YD08837 |
BERG |
37 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 297 |
YD08838 |
BERG |
38 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 298 |
YD08839 |
BERG |
39 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 299 |
YD08840 |
BERG |
40 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 300 |
YD08841 |
BERG |
41 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 301 |
YD08842 |
BERG |
42 |
2010-06-06 |
2027-06-08 |
115J14 |
|
| 302 |
YD08847 |
BERG |
47 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 303 |
YD08848 |
BERG |
48 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 304 |
YD08849 |
BERG |
49 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 305 |
YD08850 |
BERG |
50 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 306 |
YD08854 |
BERG |
54 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 307 |
YD08855 |
BERG |
55 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 308 |
YD08856 |
BERG |
56 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
|
| 309 |
YD08853 |
BERG |
53 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 310 |
YD08802 |
BERG |
59 |
2010-06-07 |
2027-06-08 |
115J11 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 311 |
YC99926 |
KANA |
47 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 312 |
YC99924 |
KANA |
58 |
2010-06-04 |
2027-06-08 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 313 |
YC99927 |
KANA |
48 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 314 |
YC99928 |
KANA |
49 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 315 |
YC99929 |
KANA |
50 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 316 |
YC99930 |
KANA |
51 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 317 |
YC99931 |
KANA |
52 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 318 |
YC99932 |
KANA |
53 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 319 |
YC99933 |
KANA |
54 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 320 |
YC99934 |
KANA |
55 |
2010-06-08 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 321 |
YC99935 |
KANA |
56 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 322 |
YC99936 |
KANA |
57 |
2010-06-05 |
2027-06-08 |
115J15 |
|
| 323 |
YC99879 |
KANA |
1 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 324 |
YC99880 |
KANA |
2 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 325 |
YC99881 |
KANA |
3 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 326 |
YC99882 |
KANA |
4 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 327 |
YC99883 |
KANA |
5 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 328 |
YC99884 |
KANA |
6 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 329 |
YC99885 |
KANA |
7 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 330 |
YC99886 |
KANA |
8 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 331 |
YC99887 |
KANA |
9 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 332 |
YC99888 |
KANA |
10 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 333 |
YC99889 |
KANA |
11 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 334 |
YC99890 |
KANA |
12 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 335 |
YC99891 |
KANA |
13 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 336 |
YC99892 |
KANA |
14 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 337 |
YC99893 |
KANA |
15 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 338 |
YC99894 |
KANA |
16 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 339 |
YC99895 |
KANA |
17 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 340 |
YC99896 |
KANA |
18 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 341 |
YC99897 |
KANA |
19 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 342 |
YC99898 |
KANA |
20 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 343 |
YC99899 |
KANA |
21 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 344 |
YC99900 |
KANA |
22 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 345 |
YC99901 |
KANA |
23 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 346 |
YC99902 |
KANA |
24 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 347 |
YC99903 |
KANA |
25 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 348 |
YC99904 |
KANA |
26 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 349 |
YC99905 |
KANA |
27 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 350 |
YC99906 |
KANA |
28 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 351 |
YC99907 |
KANA |
29 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 352 |
YC99908 |
KANA |
30 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 353 |
YC99909 |
KANA |
31 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 354 |
YC99910 |
KANA |
32 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 355 |
YC99911 |
KANA |
33 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 356 |
YC99912 |
KANA |
34 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 357 |
YC99913 |
KANA |
35 |
2009-06-20 |
2027-06-22 |
115J15 |
|
| 358 |
YD08861 |
BERG F |
61 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 359 |
YD08862 |
BERG F |
62 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 360 |
YD08863 |
BERG F |
63 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 361 |
YD08864 |
BERG F |
64 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 362 |
YD08865 |
BERG F |
65 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J11 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 363 |
YD08866 |
BERG F |
66 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J11 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 364 |
YD08867 |
BERG F |
67 |
2010-08-09 |
2027-08-13 |
115J14 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 365 |
YB37482 |
KOFFEE |
1 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 366 |
YB37483 |
KOFFEE |
2 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 367 |
YB37484 |
KOFFEE |
3 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 368 |
YB37485 |
KOFFEE |
4 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 369 |
YB37486 |
KOFFEE |
5 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 370 |
YB37487 |
KOFFEE |
6 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 371 |
YB37488 |
KOFFEE |
7 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 372 |
YB37489 |
KOFFEE |
8 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 373 |
YB37490 |
KOFFEE |
9 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 374 |
YB37491 |
KOFFEE |
10 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 375 |
YB37492 |
KOFFEE |
11 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 376 |
YB37493 |
KOFFEE |
12 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 377 |
YB37494 |
KOFFEE |
13 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 378 |
YB37495 |
KOFFEE |
14 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 379 |
YB37496 |
KOFFEE |
15 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 380 |
YB37497 |
KOFFEE |
16 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 381 |
YB37498 |
KOFFEE |
17 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 382 |
YB37499 |
KOFFEE |
18 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 383 |
YB37500 |
KOFFEE |
19 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 384 |
YB37501 |
KOFFEE |
20 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 385 |
YB37502 |
KOFFEE |
21 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 386 |
YB37503 |
KOFFEE |
22 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 387 |
YB37504 |
KOFFEE |
23 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 388 |
YB37505 |
KOFFEE |
24 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 389 |
YB37506 |
KOFFEE |
25 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 390 |
YB37507 |
KOFFEE |
26 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 391 |
YB37508 |
KOFFEE |
27 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 392 |
YB37509 |
KOFFEE |
28 |
1992-09-12 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 393 |
YB37510 |
KOFFEE |
29 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 394 |
YB37511 |
KOFFEE |
30 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 395 |
YB37512 |
KOFFEE |
31 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 396 |
YB37513 |
KOFFEE |
32 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 397 |
YB37514 |
KOFFEE |
33 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 398 |
YB37515 |
KOFFEE |
34 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 399 |
YB37516 |
KOFFEE |
35 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 400 |
YB37517 |
KOFFEE |
36 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 401 |
YB37518 |
KOFFEE |
37 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 402 |
YB37519 |
KOFFEE |
38 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 403 |
YB37520 |
KOFFEE |
39 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 404 |
YB37521 |
KOFFEE |
40 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 405 |
YB37522 |
KOFFEE |
41 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 406 |
YB37523 |
KOFFEE |
42 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 407 |
YB37524 |
KOFFEE |
43 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 408 |
YB37525 |
KOFFEE |
44 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 409 |
YB37526 |
KOFFEE |
45 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 410 |
YB37527 |
KOFFEE |
46 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 411 |
YB37528 |
KOFFEE |
47 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 412 |
YB37529 |
KOFFEE |
48 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 413 |
YB37530 |
KOFFEE |
49 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 414 |
YB37531 |
KOFFEE |
50 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 415 |
YB37532 |
KOFFEE |
51 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 416 |
YB37533 |
KOFFEE |
52 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 417 |
YB37534 |
KOFFEE |
53 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 418 |
YB37535 |
KOFFEE |
54 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 419 |
YB37536 |
KOFFEE |
55 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 420 |
YB37537 |
KOFFEE |
56 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 421 |
YB37538 |
KOFFEE |
57 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 422 |
YB37539 |
KOFFEE |
58 |
1992-09-13 |
2027-09-21 |
115J10 |
|
| 423 |
YC99914 |
KANA |
36 |
2009-09-01 |
2027-09-29 |
115J15 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 424 |
YB37801 |
ICE |
1 |
1993-01-21 |
2028-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 425 |
YB37802 |
ICE |
2 |
1993-01-21 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 426 |
YB37803 |
ICE |
3 |
1993-01-21 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 427 |
YB37804 |
ICE |
4 |
1993-01-21 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 428 |
YB37805 |
ICE |
5 |
1993-01-21 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 429 |
YB37809 |
ICE |
9 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 430 |
YB37810 |
ICE |
10 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 431 |
YB37811 |
ICE |
11 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 432 |
YB37812 |
ICE |
12 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 433 |
YB37813 |
ICE |
13 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 434 |
YB37814 |
ICE |
14 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 435 |
YB37815 |
ICE |
15 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 436 |
YB37816 |
ICE |
16 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 437 |
YB37817 |
ICE |
17 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 438 |
YB37818 |
ICE |
18 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 439 |
YB37825 |
ICE |
25 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 440 |
YB37826 |
ICE |
26 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J10 |
|
| 441 |
YB37827 |
ICE |
27 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 442 |
YB37828 |
ICE |
28 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 443 |
YB37829 |
ICE |
29 |
1993-01-22 |
2028-01-27 |
115J11 |
|
| 444 |
YA86735 |
ANA |
1 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 445 |
YA86736 |
ANA |
2 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 446 |
YA86737 |
ANA |
3 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 447 |
YA86738 |
ANA |
4 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 448 |
YA86739 |
ANA |
5 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 449 |
YA86740 |
ANA |
6 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 450 |
YA86741 |
ANA |
7 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 451 |
YA86742 |
ANA |
8 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 452 |
YA86743 |
ANA |
9 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 453 |
YA86744 |
ANA |
10 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 454 |
YA86749 |
ANA |
15 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 455 |
YA86750 |
ANA |
16 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 456 |
YA86751 |
ANA |
17 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 457 |
YA86752 |
ANA |
18 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 458 |
YA86753 |
ANA |
19 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 459 |
YA86754 |
ANA |
20 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 460 |
YA86755 |
ANA |
21 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 461 |
YA86756 |
ANA |
22 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 462 |
YA86757 |
ANA |
23 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 463 |
YA86758 |
ANA |
24 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 464 |
YA86759 |
ANA |
25 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 465 |
YA86760 |
ANA |
26 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 466 |
YA86763 |
ANA |
29 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 467 |
YA86764 |
ANA |
30 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 468 |
YA86765 |
ANA |
31 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 469 |
YA86766 |
ANA |
32 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 470 |
YA86767 |
ANA |
33 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 471 |
YA86768 |
ANA |
34 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 472 |
YA86769 |
ANA |
35 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 473 |
YA86770 |
ANA |
36 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 474 |
YA86771 |
ANA |
37 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 475 |
YA86772 |
ANA |
38 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 476 |
YA86773 |
ANA |
39 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 477 |
YA86774 |
ANA |
40 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 478 |
YA86777 |
ANA |
43 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 479 |
YA86778 |
ANA |
44 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 480 |
YA86779 |
ANA |
45 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 481 |
YA86780 |
ANA |
46 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 482 |
YA86781 |
ANA |
47 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 483 |
YA86782 |
ANA |
48 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 484 |
YA86783 |
ANA |
49 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 485 |
YA86784 |
ANA |
50 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 486 |
YA86785 |
ANA |
51 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 487 |
YA86786 |
ANA |
52 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 488 |
YA86787 |
ANA |
53 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 489 |
YA86788 |
ANA |
54 |
1985-04-25 |
2028-02-17 |
115J10 |
|
| 490 |
YE32245 |
PAL |
1 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 491 |
YE32246 |
PAL |
2 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 492 |
YE32247 |
PAL |
3 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 493 |
YE32248 |
PAL |
4 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 494 |
YE32249 |
PAL |
5 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 495 |
YE32138 |
PAL |
6 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 496 |
YE32139 |
PAL |
7 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 497 |
YE32140 |
PAL |
8 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 498 |
YE32141 |
PAL |
9 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 499 |
YE32142 |
PAL |
10 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 500 |
YE32143 |
PAL |
11 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 501 |
YE32144 |
PAL |
12 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 502 |
YE32145 |
PAL |
13 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 503 |
YE32146 |
PAL |
14 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 504 |
YE32147 |
PAL |
15 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 505 |
YE32148 |
PAL |
16 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 506 |
YE32149 |
PAL |
17 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 507 |
YE32150 |
PAL |
18 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 508 |
YE32151 |
PAL |
19 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 509 |
YE32152 |
PAL |
20 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 510 |
YE32153 |
PAL |
21 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 511 |
YE32154 |
PAL |
22 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 512 |
YE32155 |
PAL |
23 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 513 |
YE32156 |
PAL |
24 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 514 |
YE32157 |
PAL |
25 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 515 |
YE32196 |
PAL |
26 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 516 |
YE32197 |
PAL |
27 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 517 |
YE32178 |
PAL |
28 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 518 |
YE32179 |
PAL |
29 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 519 |
YE32180 |
PAL |
30 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 520 |
YE32181 |
PAL |
31 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 521 |
YE32182 |
PAL |
32 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 522 |
YE32183 |
PAL |
33 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 523 |
YE32184 |
PAL |
34 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 524 |
YE32185 |
PAL |
35 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 525 |
YE32186 |
PAL |
36 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 526 |
YE32187 |
PAL |
37 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 527 |
YE32101 |
PAL |
38 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 528 |
YE32102 |
PAL |
39 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 529 |
YE32103 |
PAL |
40 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 530 |
YE32104 |
PAL |
41 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 531 |
YE32106 |
PAL |
42 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 532 |
YE32105 |
PAL |
43 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 533 |
YE32108 |
PAL |
44 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 534 |
YE32107 |
PAL |
45 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 535 |
YE32110 |
PAL |
46 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 536 |
YE32109 |
PAL |
47 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 537 |
YE32112 |
PAL |
48 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 538 |
YE32111 |
PAL |
49 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 539 |
YE32114 |
PAL |
50 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 540 |
YE32113 |
PAL |
51 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 541 |
YE32115 |
PAL |
52 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 542 |
YE32116 |
PAL |
53 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 543 |
YE32118 |
PAL |
54 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 544 |
YE32117 |
PAL |
55 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 545 |
YE32232 |
PAL |
56 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 546 |
YE32231 |
PAL |
57 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 547 |
YE32233 |
PAL |
58 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 548 |
YE32234 |
PAL |
60 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 549 |
YE32235 |
PAL |
62 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 550 |
YE32236 |
PAL |
64 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 551 |
YE32237 |
PAL |
65 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 552 |
YE32135 |
PAL |
66 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 553 |
YE32136 |
PAL |
67 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 554 |
YE32133 |
PAL |
68 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 555 |
YE32134 |
PAL |
69 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 556 |
YE32119 |
PAL |
70 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 557 |
YE32120 |
PAL |
71 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 558 |
YE32121 |
PAL |
72 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 559 |
YE32122 |
PAL |
73 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 560 |
YE32123 |
PAL |
74 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 561 |
YE32124 |
PAL |
75 |
2016-05-16 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 562 |
YE32125 |
PAL |
108 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 563 |
YE32126 |
PAL |
109 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 564 |
YE32127 |
PAL |
110 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 565 |
YE32128 |
PAL |
111 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 566 |
YE32129 |
PAL |
112 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 567 |
YE32130 |
PAL |
113 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 568 |
YE32131 |
PAL |
114 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 569 |
YE32132 |
PAL |
115 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 570 |
YE32188 |
PAL |
143 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 571 |
YE32200 |
PAL |
150 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 572 |
YE32189 |
PAL |
151 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 573 |
YE32190 |
PAL |
152 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 574 |
YE32191 |
PAL |
153 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 575 |
YE32192 |
PAL |
154 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 576 |
YE32193 |
PAL |
155 |
2016-05-17 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 577 |
YD60030 |
AXS |
137 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 578 |
YD60031 |
AXS |
138 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 579 |
YD60032 |
AXS |
139 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 580 |
YD60033 |
AXS |
140 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 581 |
YD60034 |
AXS |
141 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 582 |
YD60035 |
AXS |
142 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 583 |
YD60036 |
AXS |
143 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 584 |
YD60037 |
AXS |
144 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 585 |
YD60038 |
AXS |
145 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 586 |
YD60039 |
AXS |
146 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 587 |
YD60040 |
AXS |
147 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 588 |
YD60041 |
AXS |
148 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 589 |
YD60042 |
AXS |
149 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 590 |
YD60043 |
AXS |
150 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 591 |
YD60044 |
AXS |
151 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 592 |
YD60045 |
AXS |
152 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 593 |
YD60046 |
AXS |
154 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 594 |
YD60047 |
AXS |
153 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 595 |
YD60048 |
AXS |
155 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 596 |
YD60049 |
AXS |
156 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 597 |
YD60050 |
AXS |
157 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 598 |
YD60051 |
AXS |
158 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 599 |
YD60052 |
AXS |
159 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 600 |
YD60053 |
AXS |
160 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 601 |
YD60054 |
AXS |
161 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 602 |
YD60055 |
AXS |
162 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 603 |
YD60056 |
AXS |
163 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 604 |
YD60057 |
AXS |
164 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 605 |
YD60058 |
AXS |
165 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 606 |
YD60059 |
AXS |
166 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 607 |
YD60060 |
AXS |
167 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 608 |
YD60061 |
AXS |
168 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 609 |
YD60062 |
AXS |
169 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 610 |
YD60063 |
AXS |
170 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 611 |
YD60064 |
AXS |
171 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 612 |
YD60065 |
AXS |
172 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 613 |
YD60066 |
AXS |
173 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 614 |
YD60067 |
AXS |
174 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 615 |
YD60068 |
AXS |
175 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 616 |
YD60069 |
AXS |
176 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 617 |
YD60070 |
AXS |
177 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 618 |
YD60071 |
AXS |
178 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 619 |
YD60072 |
AXS |
179 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 620 |
YD60073 |
AXS |
180 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 621 |
YD60074 |
AXS |
181 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 622 |
YD60075 |
AXS |
182 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 623 |
YD60076 |
AXS |
183 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 624 |
YD60077 |
AXS |
184 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 625 |
YD60078 |
AXS |
185 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 626 |
YD60079 |
AXS |
186 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J09 |
|
| 627 |
YD61120 |
AXS |
187 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 628 |
YD61121 |
AXS |
188 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 629 |
YD61122 |
AXS |
189 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 630 |
YD61123 |
AXS |
190 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 631 |
YD61124 |
AXS |
191 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 632 |
YD61125 |
AXS |
192 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 633 |
YD61126 |
AXS |
193 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 634 |
YD61127 |
AXS |
194 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 635 |
YD61128 |
AXS |
196 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 636 |
YD61129 |
AXS |
195 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 637 |
YD61130 |
AXS |
197 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 638 |
YD61131 |
AXS |
198 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 639 |
YD61132 |
AXS |
199 |
2010-05-11 |
2028-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 640 |
95744 |
CAT |
67 |
1965-12-05 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 641 |
95746 |
CAT |
69 |
1965-12-05 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 642 |
Y 35194 |
MOUSE |
3 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 643 |
Y 35196 |
MOUSE |
5 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 644 |
Y 35198 |
MOUSE |
7 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 645 |
Y 35199 |
MOUSE |
8 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 646 |
Y 35200 |
MOUSE |
9 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 647 |
Y 35201 |
MOUSE |
10 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 648 |
Y 35202 |
MOUSE |
11 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 649 |
Y 35203 |
MOUSE |
12 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 650 |
Y 35204 |
MOUSE |
13 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 651 |
Y 35205 |
MOUSE |
14 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 652 |
Y 35206 |
MOUSE |
15 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 653 |
Y 35207 |
MOUSE |
16 |
1969-06-04 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 654 |
Y 35483 |
MOUSE |
89 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 655 |
Y 35491 |
MOUSE |
97 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 656 |
Y 35492 |
MOUSE |
98 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 657 |
Y 35517 |
MOUSE |
123 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 658 |
Y 35518 |
MOUSE |
124 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 659 |
Y 35519 |
MOUSE |
125 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 660 |
Y 35520 |
MOUSE |
126 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 661 |
Y 35521 |
MOUSE |
127 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 662 |
Y 35522 |
MOUSE |
128 |
1969-06-22 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 663 |
YB36618 |
CAS |
31 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 664 |
YB36619 |
CAS |
32 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 665 |
YB36620 |
CAS |
33 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 666 |
YB36621 |
CAS |
34 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 667 |
YB36622 |
CAS |
35 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 668 |
YB36623 |
CAS |
36 |
1991-11-28 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 669 |
YB37242 |
E |
23 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 670 |
YB37243 |
E |
24 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 671 |
YB37244 |
E |
25 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 672 |
YB37246 |
E |
27 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 673 |
YB37247 |
E |
28 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 674 |
YB37248 |
E |
29 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 675 |
YB37249 |
E |
30 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 676 |
YB37250 |
E |
31 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 677 |
YB37251 |
E |
32 |
1992-09-01 |
2031-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 678 |
YB37278 |
F |
27 |
1992-08-30 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 679 |
YB37279 |
F |
28 |
1992-08-30 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 680 |
YB37640 |
I |
1 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 681 |
YB37641 |
I |
2 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 682 |
YB37642 |
I |
3 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 683 |
YB37643 |
I |
4 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 684 |
YB37658 |
I |
19 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 685 |
YB37659 |
I |
20 |
1992-09-09 |
2031-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 686 |
YC81316 |
BRIT |
1 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 687 |
YC81317 |
BRIT |
2 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 688 |
YC81318 |
BRIT |
3 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 689 |
YC81319 |
BRIT |
4 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 690 |
YC81320 |
BRIT |
5 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 691 |
YC81321 |
BRIT |
6 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 692 |
YC81322 |
BRIT |
7 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 693 |
YC81323 |
BRIT |
8 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 694 |
YC81324 |
BRIT |
9 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 695 |
YC81325 |
BRIT |
10 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 696 |
YC81326 |
BRIT |
11 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 697 |
YC81327 |
BRIT |
12 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 698 |
YC81328 |
BRIT |
13 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 699 |
YC81329 |
BRIT |
14 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 700 |
YC81330 |
BRIT |
15 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 701 |
YC81331 |
BRIT |
16 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 702 |
YC81332 |
BRIT |
17 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 703 |
YC81333 |
BRIT |
18 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 704 |
YC81334 |
BRIT |
19 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 705 |
YC81335 |
BRIT |
20 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 706 |
YC81336 |
BRIT |
21 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 707 |
YC81337 |
BRIT |
22 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 708 |
YC81338 |
BRIT |
23 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 709 |
YC81339 |
BRIT |
24 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 710 |
YC81340 |
BRIT |
25 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 711 |
YC81341 |
BRIT |
26 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 712 |
YC81342 |
BRIT |
27 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 713 |
YC81343 |
BRIT |
28 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 714 |
YC81344 |
BRIT |
29 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 715 |
YC81345 |
BRIT |
30 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 716 |
YC81346 |
BRIT |
31 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 717 |
YC81347 |
BRIT |
32 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 718 |
YC81348 |
BRIT |
33 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 719 |
YC81349 |
BRIT |
34 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 720 |
YC81350 |
BRIT |
35 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 721 |
YC81351 |
BRIT |
36 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 722 |
YC81352 |
BRIT |
37 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 723 |
YC81353 |
BRIT |
38 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 724 |
YC81354 |
BRIT |
39 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 725 |
YC81355 |
BRIT |
40 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 726 |
YC81356 |
BRIT |
41 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 727 |
YC81357 |
BRIT |
42 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 728 |
YC81358 |
BRIT |
43 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 729 |
YC81359 |
BRIT |
44 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 730 |
YC81360 |
BRIT |
45 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 731 |
YC81361 |
BRIT |
46 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 732 |
YC81362 |
BRIT |
47 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 733 |
YC81363 |
BRIT |
48 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 734 |
YC81364 |
BRIT |
49 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 735 |
YC81365 |
BRIT |
50 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 736 |
YC81366 |
BRIT |
51 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 737 |
YC81367 |
BRIT |
52 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 738 |
YC81368 |
BRIT |
53 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 739 |
YC81369 |
BRIT |
54 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 740 |
YC81370 |
BRIT |
55 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 741 |
YC81371 |
BRIT |
56 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 742 |
YC81372 |
BRIT |
57 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 743 |
YC81373 |
BRIT |
58 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 744 |
YC81374 |
BRIT |
59 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 745 |
YC81375 |
BRIT |
60 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 746 |
YC81376 |
BRIT |
61 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 747 |
YC81377 |
BRIT |
62 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 748 |
YC81378 |
BRIT |
63 |
2008-06-10 |
2034-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 749 |
YC81379 |
CC |
1 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 750 |
YC81380 |
CC |
2 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 751 |
YC81381 |
CC |
3 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 752 |
YC81382 |
CC |
4 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 753 |
YC81383 |
CC |
5 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 754 |
YC81384 |
CC |
6 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 755 |
YC81385 |
CC |
7 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 756 |
YC81386 |
CC |
8 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 757 |
YC81387 |
CC |
9 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 758 |
YC81388 |
CC |
10 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 759 |
YC81389 |
CC |
11 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 760 |
YC81390 |
CC |
12 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 761 |
YC81391 |
CC |
13 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 762 |
YC81392 |
CC |
14 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 763 |
YC81393 |
CC |
15 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 764 |
YC81394 |
CC |
16 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 765 |
YC81395 |
CC |
17 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 766 |
YC81396 |
CC |
18 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 767 |
YC81397 |
CC |
19 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 768 |
YC81398 |
CC |
20 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 769 |
YC81399 |
CC |
21 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 770 |
YC81400 |
CC |
22 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 771 |
YC81401 |
CC |
23 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 772 |
YC81402 |
CC |
24 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 773 |
YC81403 |
CC |
25 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 774 |
YC81404 |
CC |
26 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 775 |
YC81405 |
CC |
27 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 776 |
YC81406 |
CC |
28 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 777 |
YC81407 |
CC |
29 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 778 |
YC81408 |
CC |
30 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 779 |
YC81409 |
CC |
31 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 780 |
YC81410 |
CC |
32 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 781 |
YC81411 |
CC |
33 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 782 |
YC81412 |
CC |
34 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 783 |
YC81413 |
CC |
35 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 784 |
YC81414 |
CC |
36 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 785 |
YC81415 |
CC |
37 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 786 |
YC81416 |
CC |
38 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 787 |
YC81417 |
CC |
39 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 788 |
YC81418 |
CC |
40 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 789 |
YC81419 |
CC |
41 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 790 |
YC81420 |
CC |
42 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 791 |
YC81421 |
CC |
43 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 792 |
YC81422 |
CC |
44 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 793 |
YC81423 |
CC |
45 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 794 |
YC81424 |
CC |
46 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 795 |
YC81425 |
CC |
47 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 796 |
YC81426 |
CC |
48 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 797 |
YC81427 |
CC |
49 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 798 |
YC81428 |
CC |
50 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 799 |
YC81429 |
CC |
51 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 800 |
YC81430 |
CC |
52 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 801 |
YC81431 |
CC |
53 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 802 |
YC81432 |
CC |
54 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 803 |
YC81433 |
CC |
55 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 804 |
YC81434 |
CC |
56 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 805 |
YC81435 |
CC |
57 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 806 |
YC81436 |
CC |
58 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 807 |
YC81437 |
CC |
59 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 808 |
YC81438 |
CC |
60 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 809 |
YC81439 |
CC |
61 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 810 |
YC81440 |
CC |
62 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 811 |
YC81441 |
CC |
63 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 812 |
YC81442 |
CC |
64 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 813 |
YC81443 |
CC |
65 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 814 |
YC81444 |
CC |
66 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 815 |
YC81445 |
CC |
67 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 816 |
YC81446 |
CC |
68 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 817 |
YC81447 |
CC |
69 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 818 |
YC81448 |
CC |
70 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 819 |
YC81449 |
CC |
71 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 820 |
YC81450 |
CC |
72 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 821 |
YC81451 |
CC |
73 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 822 |
YC81452 |
CC |
74 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 823 |
YC81453 |
CC |
75 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 824 |
YC81454 |
CC |
76 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 825 |
YC81455 |
CC |
77 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 826 |
YC81456 |
CC |
78 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 827 |
YC81457 |
CC |
79 |
2008-06-12 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 828 |
YC81458 |
CC |
80 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 829 |
YC81459 |
CC |
81 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 830 |
YC81460 |
CC |
82 |
2008-06-11 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 831 |
YC81461 |
CC |
83 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 832 |
YC81462 |
CC |
84 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 833 |
YC81463 |
CC |
85 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 834 |
YC81464 |
CC |
86 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 835 |
YC81465 |
CC |
87 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 836 |
YC81466 |
CC |
88 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 837 |
YC81467 |
CC |
89 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 838 |
YC81468 |
CC |
90 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 839 |
YC81469 |
CC |
91 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 840 |
YC81470 |
CC |
92 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 841 |
YC81471 |
CC |
93 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 842 |
YC81472 |
CC |
94 |
2008-06-13 |
2034-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 843 |
Y 10693 |
JOE |
89 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 844 |
Y 10694 |
JOE |
90 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 845 |
Y 10695 |
JOE |
91 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 846 |
Y 10696 |
JOE |
92 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 847 |
Y 10697 |
JOE |
93 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 848 |
Y 10698 |
JOE |
94 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 849 |
Y 10699 |
JOE |
95 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 850 |
Y 10700 |
JOE |
96 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 851 |
Y 10702 |
JOE |
98 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 852 |
Y 10703 |
JOE |
99 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 853 |
Y 10705 |
JOE |
101 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 854 |
Y 10706 |
JOE |
102 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 855 |
Y 10707 |
JOE |
103 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 856 |
Y 10708 |
JOE |
104 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 857 |
Y 35192 |
MOUSE |
1 |
1969-06-04 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 858 |
Y 35193 |
MOUSE |
2 |
1969-06-04 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 859 |
Y 51850 |
JOE |
91 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 860 |
Y 51851 |
JOE |
92 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 861 |
Y 51852 |
JOE |
93 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 862 |
Y 51853 |
JOE |
94 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 863 |
Y 51854 |
JOE |
95 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 864 |
Y 51855 |
JOE |
96 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 865 |
YC64893 |
VIK |
1 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 866 |
YC64894 |
VIK |
2 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 867 |
YC64895 |
VIK |
3 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 868 |
YC64896 |
VIK |
4 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 869 |
YC64897 |
VIK |
5 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 870 |
YC64898 |
VIK |
6 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 871 |
YC64899 |
VIK |
7 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 872 |
YC64900 |
VIK |
8 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 873 |
YC64901 |
VIK |
9 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 874 |
YC64902 |
VIK |
10 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 875 |
YC64903 |
VIK |
11 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 876 |
YC64904 |
VIK |
12 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 877 |
YC64905 |
VIK |
13 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 878 |
YC64906 |
VIK |
14 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 879 |
YC64907 |
VIK |
15 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 880 |
YC64908 |
VIK |
16 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 881 |
YC64909 |
VIK |
17 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 882 |
YC64910 |
VIK |
18 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 883 |
YC64911 |
VIK |
19 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 884 |
YC64912 |
VIK |
20 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 885 |
YC64913 |
VIK |
21 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 886 |
YC64914 |
VIK |
22 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 887 |
YC64915 |
VIK |
23 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 888 |
YC64916 |
VIK |
24 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 889 |
YC64917 |
VIK |
25 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 890 |
YC64918 |
VIK |
26 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 891 |
YC64919 |
VIK |
27 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 892 |
YC64920 |
VIK |
28 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 893 |
YC64921 |
VIK |
29 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 894 |
YC64922 |
VIK |
30 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 895 |
YC64923 |
VIK |
31 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 896 |
YC64924 |
VIK |
32 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 897 |
YC64925 |
VIK |
33 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 898 |
YC64926 |
VIK |
34 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 899 |
YC64927 |
VIK |
35 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 900 |
YC64928 |
VIK |
36 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 901 |
YC64929 |
VIK |
37 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 902 |
YC64930 |
VIK |
38 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 903 |
YC64931 |
VIK |
39 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 904 |
YC64932 |
VIK |
40 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 905 |
YC64933 |
VIK |
41 |
2007-05-31 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 906 |
YC64934 |
VIK |
42 |
2007-05-31 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 907 |
YC64935 |
VIK |
43 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 908 |
YC64936 |
VIK |
44 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 909 |
YC64937 |
VIK |
45 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 910 |
YC64938 |
VIK |
46 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 911 |
YC64939 |
VIK |
47 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 912 |
YC64940 |
VIK |
48 |
2007-06-05 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 913 |
YC64941 |
VIK |
49 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 914 |
YC64942 |
VIK |
50 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 915 |
YC64943 |
VIK |
51 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 916 |
YC64944 |
VIK |
52 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 917 |
YC64945 |
VIK |
53 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 918 |
YC64946 |
VIK |
54 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 919 |
YC64947 |
VIK |
55 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 920 |
YC64948 |
VIK |
56 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 921 |
YC64949 |
VIK |
57 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 922 |
YC64950 |
VIK |
58 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 923 |
YC64951 |
VIK |
59 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 924 |
YC64952 |
VIK |
60 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 925 |
YC64953 |
VIK |
61 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 926 |
YC64954 |
VIK |
62 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 927 |
YC64955 |
VIK |
63 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 928 |
YC64956 |
VIK |
64 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 929 |
YC64958 |
VIK |
66 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 930 |
YC64959 |
VIK |
67 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 931 |
YC64960 |
VIK |
68 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 932 |
YC64961 |
VIK |
69 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 933 |
YC64962 |
VIK |
70 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 934 |
YC64963 |
VIK |
71 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 935 |
YC64964 |
VIK |
72 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 936 |
YC64965 |
VIK |
73 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 937 |
YC64966 |
VIK |
74 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 938 |
YC64967 |
VIK |
75 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 939 |
YC64968 |
VIK |
76 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 940 |
YC64969 |
VIK |
77 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 941 |
YC64970 |
VIK |
78 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 942 |
YC64971 |
VIK |
79 |
2007-05-24 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 943 |
YC64972 |
VIK |
80 |
2007-05-27 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 944 |
YC64973 |
VIK |
81 |
2007-05-25 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 945 |
YC64974 |
VIK |
82 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 946 |
YC64975 |
VIK |
83 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 947 |
YC64976 |
VIK |
84 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 948 |
YC64977 |
VIK |
85 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 949 |
YC64978 |
VIK |
86 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 950 |
YC64979 |
VIK |
87 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 951 |
YC64980 |
VIK |
88 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 952 |
YC64981 |
VIK |
89 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 953 |
YC64982 |
VIK |
90 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 954 |
YC64983 |
VIK |
91 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 955 |
YC64984 |
VIK |
92 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 956 |
YC64985 |
VIK |
93 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 957 |
YC64986 |
VIK |
94 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 958 |
YC64987 |
VIK |
95 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 959 |
YC64988 |
VIK |
96 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 960 |
YC64989 |
VIK |
97 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 961 |
YC64990 |
VIK |
98 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 962 |
YC64991 |
VIK |
99 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 963 |
YC64992 |
VIK |
100 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 964 |
YC64993 |
VIK |
101 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 965 |
YC64994 |
VIK |
102 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 966 |
YC64995 |
VIK |
103 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 967 |
YC64996 |
VIK |
104 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 968 |
YC64997 |
VIK |
105 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 969 |
YC64998 |
VIK |
106 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 970 |
YC64999 |
VIK |
107 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 971 |
YC65000 |
VIK |
108 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 972 |
YC65001 |
VIK |
109 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 973 |
YC65002 |
VIK |
110 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 974 |
YC65003 |
VIK |
111 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 975 |
YC65004 |
VIK |
112 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 976 |
YC65005 |
VIK |
113 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 977 |
YC65006 |
VIK |
114 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 978 |
YC65007 |
VIK |
115 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 979 |
YC65008 |
VIK |
116 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 980 |
YC65009 |
VIK |
117 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 981 |
YC65010 |
VIK |
118 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 982 |
YC65011 |
VIK |
119 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 983 |
YC65012 |
VIK |
120 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 984 |
YC65013 |
VIK |
121 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 985 |
YC65014 |
VIK |
122 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 986 |
YC65015 |
VIK |
123 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 987 |
YC65016 |
VIK |
124 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 988 |
YC65017 |
VIK |
125 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 989 |
YC65018 |
VIK |
126 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 990 |
YC65019 |
VIK |
127 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 991 |
YC65020 |
VIK |
128 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 992 |
YC65021 |
VIK |
129 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 993 |
YC65022 |
VIK |
130 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 994 |
YC65023 |
VIK |
131 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 995 |
YC65024 |
VIK |
132 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 996 |
YC65025 |
VIK |
133 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 997 |
YC65026 |
VIK |
134 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 998 |
YC65027 |
VIK |
135 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 999 |
YC65028 |
VIK |
136 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1000 |
YC65029 |
VIK |
137 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1001 |
YC65030 |
VIK |
138 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1002 |
YC65031 |
VIK |
139 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1003 |
YC65032 |
VIK |
140 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1004 |
YC65033 |
VIK |
141 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1005 |
YC65034 |
VIK |
142 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1006 |
YC65035 |
VIK |
143 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 1007 |
YC65036 |
VIK |
144 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1008 |
YC65037 |
VIK |
145 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1009 |
YC65038 |
VIK |
146 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1010 |
YC65039 |
VIK |
147 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1011 |
YC65040 |
VIK |
148 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1012 |
YC65041 |
VIK |
149 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1013 |
YC65042 |
VIK |
150 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1014 |
YC65043 |
VIK |
151 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1015 |
YC65044 |
VIK |
152 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1016 |
YC65045 |
VIK |
153 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1017 |
YC65046 |
VIK |
154 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1018 |
YC65047 |
VIK |
155 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1019 |
YC65048 |
VIK |
156 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1020 |
YC65049 |
VIK |
157 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1021 |
YC65050 |
VIK |
158 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1022 |
YC65051 |
VIK |
159 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1023 |
YC65052 |
VIK |
160 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1024 |
YC65053 |
VIK |
161 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1025 |
YC65054 |
VIK |
162 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1026 |
YC65055 |
VIK |
163 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1027 |
YC65056 |
VIK |
164 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1028 |
YC65057 |
VIK |
165 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1029 |
YC65058 |
VIK |
166 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1030 |
YC65059 |
VIK |
167 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1031 |
YC65060 |
VIK |
168 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1032 |
YC65061 |
VIK |
169 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1033 |
YC65062 |
VIK |
170 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1034 |
YC65063 |
VIK |
171 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1035 |
YC65064 |
VIK |
172 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1036 |
YC65065 |
VIK |
173 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1037 |
YC65066 |
VIK |
174 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1038 |
YC65067 |
VIK |
175 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1039 |
YC65068 |
VIK |
176 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1040 |
YC65069 |
VIK |
177 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1041 |
YC65070 |
VIK |
178 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1042 |
YC65071 |
VIK |
179 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1043 |
YC65072 |
VIK |
180 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1044 |
YC65073 |
VIK |
181 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1045 |
YC65074 |
VIK |
182 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1046 |
YC65075 |
VIK |
183 |
2007-05-30 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1047 |
YC65076 |
VIK |
184 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1048 |
YC65077 |
VIK |
185 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1049 |
YC65078 |
VIK |
186 |
2007-05-28 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1050 |
YC65079 |
VIK |
187 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1051 |
YC65080 |
VIK |
188 |
2007-05-29 |
2036-03-05 |
115J15 |
|
| 1052 |
YC64957 |
VIK |
65 |
2007-05-26 |
2036-03-05 |
115J10 |
|
| 1053 |
4252 |
HELICOPTER |
|
1943-09-04 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1054 |
56979 |
#1 BOMBER GROUP |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1055 |
56980 |
#3 BOMBER GROUP |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1056 |
56981 |
#5 BOMBER GROUP |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1057 |
56983 |
#1 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1058 |
56984 |
#3 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1059 |
56985 |
#5 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1060 |
56987 |
#2 BOMBER GROUP |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1061 |
56988 |
#6 BOMBER GROUP |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1062 |
56990 |
#2 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 1063 |
56991 |
#4 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1064 |
56992 |
#6 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-08-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1065 |
56993 |
#8 AIRPORT GROU |
|
1947-07-07 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1066 |
92201 |
CAT |
1 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1067 |
92202 |
CAT |
2 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1068 |
92203 |
CAT |
3 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1069 |
92204 |
CAT |
4 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1070 |
92205 |
CAT |
5 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1071 |
92206 |
CAT |
6 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1072 |
92207 |
CAT |
7 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1073 |
92208 |
CAT |
8 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1074 |
92209 |
CAT |
9 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1075 |
92210 |
CAT |
10 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1076 |
92211 |
CAT |
11 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1077 |
92212 |
CAT |
12 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1078 |
92213 |
CAT |
13 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1079 |
92214 |
CAT |
14 |
1965-06-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1080 |
92215 |
CAT |
15 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1081 |
92216 |
CAT |
16 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1082 |
92217 |
CAT |
17 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1083 |
92218 |
CAT |
18 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1084 |
92219 |
CAT |
19 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1085 |
92220 |
CAT |
20 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1086 |
92221 |
CAT |
21 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1087 |
92222 |
CAT |
22 |
1965-06-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1088 |
92764 |
CAT |
23 |
1965-09-10 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1089 |
92765 |
CAT |
24 |
1965-09-10 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1090 |
92766 |
CAT |
25 |
1965-09-10 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1091 |
92776 |
CAT |
35 |
1965-09-11 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1092 |
92777 |
CAT |
36 |
1965-09-11 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1093 |
92778 |
CAT |
37 |
1965-09-11 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1094 |
92779 |
CAT |
38 |
1965-09-11 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1095 |
92780 |
CAT |
39 |
1965-09-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1096 |
92781 |
CAT |
40 |
1965-09-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1097 |
92782 |
CAT |
41 |
1965-09-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1098 |
92783 |
CAT |
42 |
1965-09-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1099 |
95724 |
CAT |
47 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1100 |
95725 |
CAT |
48 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1101 |
95726 |
CAT |
49 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1102 |
95727 |
CAT |
50 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1103 |
95728 |
CAT |
51 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1104 |
95729 |
CAT |
52 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1105 |
95730 |
CAT |
53 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1106 |
95731 |
CAT |
54 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1107 |
95732 |
CAT |
55 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 1108 |
95733 |
CAT |
56 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J15 |
|
| 1109 |
95734 |
CAT |
57 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1110 |
95735 |
CAT |
58 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1111 |
95736 |
CAT |
59 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1112 |
95737 |
CAT |
60 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1113 |
95738 |
CAT |
61 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1114 |
95739 |
CAT |
62 |
1965-12-02 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1115 |
Y 10701 |
JOE |
97 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1116 |
Y 10704 |
JOE |
100 |
1966-09-24 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1117 |
Y 35582 |
MOUSE |
161 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1118 |
Y 35583 |
MOUSE |
162 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| | List of Casino Quartz Claims | |
| |
District:
Status: |
Whitehorse
Active |
|
|
Claim owner: |
Casino Mining Corp. |
| # |
Grant Number |
Claim Name |
Claim
Number |
Staking date |
Expiry Date |
NTS Map |
Non Standard Size |
| 1119 |
Y 35584 |
MOUSE |
163 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1120 |
Y 35585 |
LOST FR. |
1 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1121 |
Y 35586 |
LOST FR. |
2 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1122 |
Y 35587 |
LOST FR. |
3 |
1969-06-25 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1123 |
Y 36686 |
CAT |
22 |
1969-08-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1124 |
Y 36687 |
CAT |
47 |
1969-08-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1125 |
Y 36688 |
CAT |
48 |
1969-08-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1126 |
Y 36690 |
CAT |
62 |
1969-08-12 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1127 |
Y 39601 |
CAT |
3 |
1969-10-23 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1128 |
Y 39602 |
CAT |
4 |
1969-10-23 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1129 |
Y 39603 |
CAT |
23 |
1969-10-23 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1130 |
Y 51846 |
CAT |
1 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 1131 |
Y 51847 |
CAT |
2 |
1970-03-29 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
| 1132 |
Y 51849 |
CAT |
26 |
1970-03-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
Partial Quartz fraction (<25 acres) |
| 1133 |
YB37280 |
F |
29 |
1992-08-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1134 |
YB37282 |
F |
31 |
1992-08-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1135 |
YB37284 |
F |
33 |
1992-08-30 |
2036-03-25 |
115J10 |
|
| 1136 |
Y 36689 |
CAT |
57 |
1969-08-12 |
2036-06-05 |
115J10 |
Full Quartz fraction (25+ acres) |
