Welcome!

Apache Authors: Liz McMillan, Pat Romanski, Elizabeth White, Janakiram MSV, Gil Allouche

News Feed Item

Commonwealth Silver and Gold Completes Positive Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Commonwealth Project, Cochise County, Arizona

TORONTO, ONTARIO -- (Marketwired) -- 02/13/14 -- Commonwealth Silver and Gold Mining Inc. ("Commonwealth Silver and Gold" or the "Company") is pleased to provide the results that will be reported in its Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") for the 98% controlled Commonwealth gold and silver project in Cochise County, Arizona, approximately 120 km (75 miles) southeast of Tucson. The PEA was completed in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101") by Hard Rock Consulting, LLC ("HRC") of Lakewood, Colorado. All dollar amounts are in United States dollars unless otherwise stated.

All NPV amounts, IRR and payback period are based on the Company's 98% share of Project economics. All mining statistics, production, capital and closure amounts are to 100%. Highlights from the base case study at $1,350 per ounce gold, $22.50 per ounce silver and based solely on estimated Measured and Indicated mineral resources include:


--  Pre-tax Net Present Value ("NPV") at a 5% discount rate of $141.0
    million and a pre-tax Internal Rate of Return ("IRR") of 74.9%; 
--  After-tax NPV at a 5% discount rate of $101.3 million and IRR of 58.2%; 
--  After-tax payback of 1.6 years; 
--  Pre-production capital cost ("CAPEX") of $27.2 million including a 20%
    contingency; 
--  Remaining advance royalty payment $4.1 million and start-up working
    capital of $13.5 million until positive cash flow from leaching is
    achieved; 
--  Sustaining capital of $20.6 million (100%) over life of mine ("LOM")
    including a 20% contingency and reclamation, net of salvage values of
    $8.4 million; 
--  An 8.7 year mine life, mining and processing 31.2 million tonnes of ore
    at 10,000 tpd, averaging 0.39 grams per tonne ("g/t") gold and 32.0 g/t
    silver; 
--  An overall strip ratio of 0.97:1; 
--  Average annual payable metal production of 35,800 ounces of gold and 1.3
    million ounces of silver for total LOM production of approximately
    312,000 ounces of gold and 10.9 million ounces of silver;  
--  Average annual gold equivalent ("AuEq") production of 57,000 ounces AuEq
    at 60:1 gold to silver ratio, peaking at approximately 69,000 ounces
    AuEq in year 7; 
--  Gold Institute Cost Standard, LOM total cash operating costs are
    estimated to be approximately $831 per gold equivalent ounce; 
--  The HRC PEA has been constrained to the mineral resource estimate
    contained within a pit located entirely on the Company's patented mining
    claims and does not take into account the potential for additional
    mineralization on the adjoining unpatented mining claims or the
    potential for mineralization at the nearby Blue Jeep and San Ignacio
    exploration targets, all of which have the potential to extend the
    current projected life of the overall project or augment the economics
    of future years. Currently, there are no additional estimated mineral
    resources on any of these areas that are in compliance with NI 43-101. 

Michael Farrant, President and CEO stated, "We are extremely pleased with this Preliminary Economic Assessment. It demonstrates that the Commonwealth Project is one of the best undeveloped precious metals projects in the world based on after-tax IRR and after-tax NPV relative to the capital required to put the Project into production. The Project sits on private land in a mining friendly jurisdiction surrounded by first rate infrastructure. Most importantly, given the size of the Project relative to the market capitalization of the Company, this is a Project that can get built and those are exactly the kinds of projects that are retaining a superior valuation in the changing global mining landscape. The Commonwealth Project is currently projected to become the largest operating gold mine in the state of Arizona. As a Company, we have continued to deliver against our originally stated plans and I am very pleased with the work performed by everyone that contributed to the completion of this PEA."

The sensitivity table below shows the pre-tax and after-tax NPV, IRR and payback period at different gold prices, with the corresponding silver price calculated at a 60:1 gold to silver ratio.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      After-
                                           Pre-             Pre-tax      tax
Au Price    Ag Price   Pre-tax After-tax    tax    After-   Payback  Payback
Per Ounce  Per Ounce  NPV ($M)  NPV ($M)    IRR   tax IRR   (Years)  (Years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,050      $  17.50  $   34.2  $   22.3   24.7%     18.6%      2.6      5.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,125      $  18.75  $   60.9  $   42.7   38.2%     29.6%      2.2      2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,200      $  20.00  $   87.7  $   62.4   50.9%     39.6%      1.8      2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,275      $  21.25  $  114.3  $   81.8   63.1%     49.1%      1.5      1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,350      $  22.50  $  141.0  $  101.3   74.9%     58.2%      1.3      1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,425      $  23.75  $  167.7  $  120.4   86.5%     67.0%      1.0      1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,500      $  25.00  $  194.4  $  138.7   97.9%     75.1%      1.0      1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,575      $  26.25  $  221.1  $  156.4  109.1%     82.4%      0.8      1.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,650      $  27.50  $  247.7  $  174.1  120.3%     89.7%      0.7      1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         
                                                                         
Table 1: Mine Plan Highlights                                            
                                                                         
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Results                                  Unit            Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Life                                          Years              8.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ore to leach pads                         M tonnes             31.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total waste                                     M tonnes             30.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strip ratio                                          w:o           0.97:1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total re-handled                                M tonnes              5.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total moved                                     M tonnes             66.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ore mining rate                                      tpd           10,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average grade to pad - Au                            g/t             0.39
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average grade to pad - Ag                            g/t             32.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative recovery - Au                              %             79.5%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative recovery - Ag                              %             34.2%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOM production - Au                               ounces          311,534
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOM production - Ag                               ounces       10,926,367
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOM production - AuEq (60:1)                      ounces          493,640
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual production - Au                    ounces           35,809
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual production - Ag                    ounces        1,255,904
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual production - AuEq (60:1)           ounces           56,740
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
                                                                            
Table 2: Economic Highlights                                                
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Results                                Value ($ M)      $/oz AuEq
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 LOM revenue - ($1,350/oz. Au, $22.50/oz. Ag)          $666.4         $1,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 LOM operating costs:                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mining (including 2.5% contingency)                   182.2            369
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Processing (including 2.5% contingency)               190.9            387
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Site G&A (including 2.5% contingency)                  19.9             40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Property and other taxes                                5.3             10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Royalties                                               8.2             17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Transportation and refining                             3.8              8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total LOM cash operating costs                          410.3            831
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital and closure costs:                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pre-production capital                                 23.0             46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Pre-production contingency (20%)                        4.2              9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total pre-production capital                             27.2             55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sustaining capital                                     17.2             35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sustaining capital contingency (20%)                    3.4              7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total sustaining capital                                 20.6             42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closure costs net of salvage values                       8.4             17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital and closure costs (including                                  
 contingency)                                            56.2            114
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other cash outflows:                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Income taxes                                           53.5            108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Other                                                   4.1              8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total after-tax cash flow                              $142.3           $289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit costs                                               Unit          Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cost per tonne mined - 61,426,774 tonnes            $/tonne          $2.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cost per tonne processed - 31,153,575                                     
   tonnes                                             $/tonne          $6.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cost per tonne site G&A - 31,153,575 tonnes         $/tonne          $0.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mineral Resource Statement for the Commonwealth Gold and Silver Project:

The Mineral Resource estimate, before designing an engineered pit, is based on a 3D geologic model constructed using geologic and assay data from approximately 23,085 meters of drilling in 208 drill holes (155 historic and 43 drilled by the Company) and 2,984 meters of channel sampling in 209 channel sample lines. The assay data was examined for the presence of high grade outlier data which could potentially adversely impact the grade estimation. Based on this analysis, all gold and silver assays were capped at 10.0 g/t and 1,000.0 g/t, respectively. The capped assay data were then composited into 4.0m down-hole lengths for use in grade estimation. Block grades were estimated using inverse distance weighting ("IDW") interpolation methods, specifically ID2.5. The Mineral Resource estimate stated above a 0.2 g/t gold equivalent ("AuEq") cut-off grade is stated below in Table 3.


                                                                            
Table 3: Mineral Resource Statement for the Commonwealth Gold-Silver        
Deposit, Cochise County, Arizona, Hard Rock Consulting, LLC, November 30,   
2013(i)                                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Contained Metal (Ounces)
                                          ----------------------------------
                       Au       Ag    AuEq                                  
Cut-off     Tonnes   Grade   Grade   Grade                                  
(g/t)       ('000)   (g/t)   (g/t)   (g/t)        Au           Ag       AuEq
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inverse Distance 2.5 Model In Pit Measured Resources            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.4          4,069    0.57    48.6    1.38    74,800    6,357,700    180,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3          4,504    0.53    45.0    1.28    77,200    6,516,900    185,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2          5,007    0.49    41.3    1.18    79,000    6,648,500    189,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inverse Distance 2.5 Model In Pit Indicated Resources           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.4         21,934    0.45    36.8    1.06   314,500   25,950,900    746,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3         26,643    0.40    32.2    0.93   339,200   27,582,000    799,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2         30,623    0.36    29,1    0.85   354,400   28,650,600    832,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   In Pit Measured and Indicated Resources                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.4         26,003    0.47    38.6    1.11   389,300   32,308,600    926,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3         31,147    0.42    34.1    0.98   416,400   34,098,900    984,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2         35,630    0.38    30.8    0.89   433,400   35,299,100  1,021,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Inverse Distance 2.5 Model Inferred Resources               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.4          7,380    0.29    17.2    0.58    67,900    4,075,100    136,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3         12,974    0.25    13.8    0.48   102,800    5,762,000    199,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.2         18,733    0.21    11.6    0.41   127,600    6,998,200    245,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


(i)Notes:                                                                   
(1) Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated 
economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the       
Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves.        
(2) Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources captured within the pit shell  
meet the test of reasonable prospect for economic extraction and can be     
declared a Mineral Resource.                                                
(3) Inferred Mineral Resources are that part of the Mineral Resource for    
which the quantity and grade or quality are estimated on the basis of       
geological evidence and limited sampling and reasonably assumed, but not    
verified, geological and grade continuity.                                  
(4) All resources are stated above a 0.2 g/t gold equivalent ("AuEq") cut-  
off.                                                                        
(5) Pit optimization is based on assumed gold and silver prices of          
US$1,350/oz. and US$22.50/oz., respectively and mining, processing and G&A  
costs of US$7.25 per tonne. Metallurgical recoveries for gold and silver    
were assigned by lithologic unit.                                           
(6) Mineral resource tonnage and contained metal have been rounded to       
reflect the accuracy of the estimate, and numbers may not add due to        
rounding.                                                                   
(7) Gold Equivalent stated using a ratio of 60:1 and ounces calculated using
the following conversion rate: 1 troy ounce = 31.1035 grams. Metallurgical  
recoveries are not accounted for in the gold equivalent calculation.        

Mineral Resource Estimates Used for Economic Assessment in the PEA:

The estimated Mineral Resource contained within the PEA includes 28.3 million tonnes at a 0.3 g/t AuEq cut-off and an additional 2.8 million tonnes of lower grade ore at a 0.24 g/t AuEq cut-off and is presented in Table 4. This represents the estimated Mineral Resource contained within the preliminary engineered pit design which includes haul roads. The PEA is preliminary in nature and it is important to note that the Mineral Resources described herein are not mineral reserves and, as such, do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realized.


                                                                            
Table 4: Measured and Indicated Resources within Pit Design                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Contained Metal (Ounces)
                                               -----------------------------
                                Au     Ag  AuEq                             
Pit      Resource     Tonnes Grade  Grade Grade                             
 Phase    Category    ('000) (g/t)  (g/t) (g/t)      Au          Ag     AuEq
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1  Measured      3,253  0.46  43.07  1.18  48,034   4,504,874  123,115
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1  Indicated    12,227  0.36  34.57  0.94 142,539  13,590,165  369,042
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Measured +                                                         
Phase 1   Indicated   15,480  0.38  36.36  0.99 190,573  18,095,039  492,157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2  Measured      1,633  0.56  38.17  1.19  29.212   2,003,915   62,610
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2  Indicated    14.040  0.38  26.37  0.82 172,644  11,902,972  371,027
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Measured +                                                         
Phase 2   Indicated   15,673  0.40  27.60  0.86 201,856  13,906,886  433,637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                       
 All                                                                        
 Phases  Measured      4,886  0.49  41.43  1.18  77,245   6,508,788  185,725
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                       
 All                                                                        
 Phases  Indicated    26,267  0.37  30.19  0.88 315,184  25,493,137  740,069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                       
 All     Measured +                                                         
 Phases   Indicated   31,154  0.39  31.95  0.92 392,429  32,001,925  925,794
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated  
economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the       
Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves.        
2) Prepared by Jeff Choquette, P.E., Mining Engineer, an independent        
Qualified Person within the meaning of NI 43-101, using a reporting cut-off 
grade of 0.24 g/t AuEq.                                                     
3) Gold Equivalent stated using a ratio of 60:1 and ounces calculated using 
the following conversion rate: 1 troy ounce = 31.1035 grams.  Metallurgical 
recoveries are not accounted for in the gold equivalent calculation.        

(i)Total Measured and Indicated ("M&I") resources are inclusive of the M&I resources limited to the optimized ultimate pit boundary and as such Table 4 summarizes resources contained within the pit design only.

Mining and Crushing

The mine plan developed for the PEA mines the Commonwealth deposit in two phases. The phase one pit containing 15.48 million ore tonnes is mined during years 1 to 4. During years 1 to 3, the average strip ratio is 0.66:1. During year 4, mining begins to transition into the phase two pit containing 15.67 million ore tonnes. The average strip ratio over years 4 to 6 is 1.66:1 while during years 7 to 9 the average strip ratio falls to 0.42:1.

Standard open pit mining methods are utilized involving typical drilling, blasting and material movement. The 31.2 million ore tonnes to be placed on the leach pads are comprised of five different rock types. Three of these rock types comprising 19.43 million ore tonnes (62%) are required to be crushed to 1/2 inch. Two of these rock types comprising 11.72 million ore tonnes (38%) are required to be crushed to 1/8 inch and agglomerated.


                                                                            
Table 5: Crush Size, Recovery and Ore Tonnage by Rock Type                  
-------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Recoveries (%)             
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Type          Crush Size       Au        Ag   Tonnes (M)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhyolite                 1/8"     78.0      30.0         7.34
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vein                     1/8"     79.0      49.0         4.38
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Andesite           1/2"     81.0      33.0         4.63
-------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Andesite           1/2"     78.0      35.0         6.11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bisbee                   1/2"     80.0      23.0         8.69
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total                             79.5      34.2        31.15
-------------------------------------------------------------

The Company received a quote from a contractor to perform all of the drilling, blasting, material movement and crushing to mine plan specifications. This quote has been included in the PEA.

Processing

The Commonwealth Project will use a (flow rate) Merrill-Crowe gold and silver recovery plant using zinc precipitation to recover gold and silver from cyanide solution. The process plant will operate 24 hours per day and 365 days per year at a rate of 3,000 gallons per minute. The process plant will produce dore with approximately 97% of the precious metal content being silver and 3% being gold.

Infrastructure

The Commonwealth Project is accessible by paved highway. Currently a 14.4 KvA powerline services the property with 60 amp service. The PEA envisions upgrading the trunk powerline from the Apache Generating Station located 19km (11 miles) from the Project site at a cost of approximately $358,000. Water is planned to be sourced from regional groundwater sources.

Capital Costs

The initial capital requirement for the Project to 100% is estimated to be $27.2 million, sustaining capital of $20.6 million and net closure costs of $8.4 million as detailed in the table below. A contingency of $7.6 million is included in the $56.2 million total.


                                                                            
Table 6: Commonwealth Project Capital and Closure Costs                     
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital and Closure Costs                         $ (millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-production Capital Costs                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conveying equipment                                        4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill-Crowe plant and equipment                          2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Truck shop, assay lab and buildings                        4.5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haul roads and access road                                 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leach pad and ponds                                        4.9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Off-site infrastructure                                    0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owner's cost and indirects                                 3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surface rights                                             1.3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total pre-production initial capital costs                23.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency                                                4.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total pre-production capital costs                        27.2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sustaining Capital Costs                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leach pads                                                 8.9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill-Crowe plant and equipment                          8.3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency                                                3.4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total sustaining capital                                  20.6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation and closure costs                             12.3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salvage values - mine and other                          (2.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salvage values - land                                    (1.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Closure costs net of salvage values                        8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital and closure costs                           56.2
--------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Analysis and Sensitivities

Using a gold price of $1,350 per ounce and a silver price of $22.50 per ounce, the PEA yields a pre-tax NPV at 5% of $141.0 million and IRR of 74.9% with a payback period of 1.3 years. After-tax NPV at 5% amounts to $101.3 million, and IRR of 58.2% and a payback period of 1.6 years.


Table 7: Project NPV Sensitivity to Discount Rates                          
------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate      Pre-tax NPV     After-tax NPV
------------------------------------------------
0%                      $195.8            $142.3
------------------------------------------------
5%                      $141.0            $101.3
------------------------------------------------
8%                      $115.6             $82.0
------------------------------------------------
10%                     $101.3             $71.2
------------------------------------------------

Qualified Persons and Contributors

The Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment for the Commonwealth Silver and Gold Project was prepared by Hard Rock Consulting, LLC of Lakewood, Colorado, with the following Qualified Persons, as defined by NI 43-101, each of whom is independent of the Company, contributing to their respective sections:

Qualified Persons

Zachary Black - QP-SME-RM, Geology, Resource Modeling

J. J. Brown - P.G., QP-SME-RM, Geology, Overall Report Content

Jeff Choquette - P.E., QP-MMSA, Mine Planning, Economic Modelling, Mine Management

Deepak Malhotra, Resource Development Inc - Ph.D., QP-MMSA, Metallurgy

Additional Contributors:

Don Beesley - B.Sc., Project Management, Scheduling, Estimating

Mark Shonnard - B.A. (Hons), CPA, Economic Modeling, Financial Analysis

Kenn Zerby - B.Sc., Mechanical Engineering, Graphics and Drafting

Each of the consultants has reviewed and approved this news release. In addition, the foregoing technical information has also been reviewed by Mr. Hall Stewart, Vice President, Exploration for Commonwealth Silver and Gold and a Qualified Person for the purpose of NI 43-101.

Technical Report

A copy of the full NI 43-101 Technical Report will be available on the Company's website at www.commonwealthsilver.ca within 45 days.

About Commonwealth Silver and Gold Mining Inc.

Commonwealth Silver and Gold is a private Canadian mineral exploration and development company focused on acquiring gold and silver properties in politically stable, mining friendly jurisdictions and advancing its flagship Commonwealth Project in Arizona towards production. The Company comprises an experienced management group with a strong background in acquisition, exploration, development and financing of precious metals mining projects.

For further information on Commonwealth Silver and Gold please visit www.commonwealthsilver.ca.

CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. INVESTORS CONCERNING ESTIMATES OF MEASURED, INDICATED AND INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCES:

Information concerning the properties of Commonwealth Silver and Gold has been prepared in accordance with Canadian standards under applicable Canadian securities laws and may not be comparable to similar information for United States companies. This news release uses the terms "Mineral Resource", "Measured Mineral Resource", "Indicated Mineral Resource" and "Inferred Mineral Resource" which are Canadian mining terms as defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43-101 under guidelines set out in the CIM standard "CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Reserves". While the terms "Mineral Resource", "Measured Mineral Resource", "Indicated Mineral Resource" and "Inferred Mineral Resource" are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, they are not defined terms under standards of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The estimation of measured and indicated Mineral Resources involves greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic feasibility than the estimation of proven and probable reserves. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that measured and indicated Mineral Resources will be converted into reserves. The estimation of inferred Mineral Resources involves far greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic viability than the other categories of estimated Mineral Resources. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an "Inferred Mineral Resource" will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies. Readers are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Resources will ever be converted to Mineral Reserves. Additionally, readers are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an "Inferred Mineral Resource" exists, or is economically mineable.

Disclosure of "contained ounces" in an estimated Mineral Resource is permitted disclosure under Canadian regulations, however the SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute "reserves" by SEC standards as in place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. Accordingly, the information contained in this news release may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies that are not subject to NI 43-101.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

This news release contains certain "forward-looking information" under Canadian securities laws. All statements that address future plans, activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur are forward-looking information. This can include, but is not limited to comments regarding the timing and content of upcoming work programs, geological interpretations, receipt of property titles, potential mineral recovery processes etc. Forward-looking information addresses future events and conditions and therefore involves inherent risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that outcomes anticipated in the forward-looking information will occur and actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The Company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or otherwise any forward-looking information, except as may be required by law.

No stock exchange, regulation securities provider, securities commission or other regulatory authority has approved or disapproved the information contained in this news release.

More Stories By Marketwired .

Copyright © 2009 Marketwired. All rights reserved. All the news releases provided by Marketwired are copyrighted. Any forms of copying other than an individual user's personal reference without express written permission is prohibited. Further distribution of these materials is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to, posting, emailing, faxing, archiving in a public database, redistributing via a computer network or in a printed form.

@ThingsExpo Stories
For basic one-to-one voice or video calling solutions, WebRTC has proven to be a very powerful technology. Although WebRTC’s core functionality is to provide secure, real-time p2p media streaming, leveraging native platform features and server-side components brings up new communication capabilities for web and native mobile applications, allowing for advanced multi-user use cases such as video broadcasting, conferencing, and media recording.
A strange thing is happening along the way to the Internet of Things, namely far too many devices to work with and manage. It has become clear that we'll need much higher efficiency user experiences that can allow us to more easily and scalably work with the thousands of devices that will soon be in each of our lives. Enter the conversational interface revolution, combining bots we can literally talk with, gesture to, and even direct with our thoughts, with embedded artificial intelligence, wh...
Ask someone to architect an Internet of Things (IoT) solution and you are guaranteed to see a reference to the cloud. This would lead you to believe that IoT requires the cloud to exist. However, there are many IoT use cases where the cloud is not feasible or desirable. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Dave McCarthy, Director of Products at Bsquare Corporation, will discuss the strategies that exist to extend intelligence directly to IoT devices and sensors, freeing them from the constraints of ...
Web Real-Time Communication APIs have quickly revolutionized what browsers are capable of. In addition to video and audio streams, we can now bi-directionally send arbitrary data over WebRTC's PeerConnection Data Channels. With the advent of Progressive Web Apps and new hardware APIs such as WebBluetooh and WebUSB, we can finally enable users to stitch together the Internet of Things directly from their browsers while communicating privately and securely in a decentralized way.
Information technology is an industry that has always experienced change, and the dramatic change sweeping across the industry today could not be truthfully described as the first time we've seen such widespread change impacting customer investments. However, the rate of the change, and the potential outcomes from today's digital transformation has the distinct potential to separate the industry into two camps: Organizations that see the change coming, embrace it, and successful leverage it; and...
Technology vendors and analysts are eager to paint a rosy picture of how wonderful IoT is and why your deployment will be great with the use of their products and services. While it is easy to showcase successful IoT solutions, identifying IoT systems that missed the mark or failed can often provide more in the way of key lessons learned. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Peter Vanderminden, Principal Industry Analyst for IoT & Digital Supply Chain to Flatiron Strategies, will focus on how IoT de...
In his session at @ThingsExpo, Kausik Sridharabalan, founder and CTO of Pulzze Systems, Inc., will focus on key challenges in building an Internet of Things solution infrastructure. He will shed light on efficient ways of defining interactions within IoT solutions, leading to cost and time reduction. He will also introduce ways to handle data and how one can develop IoT solutions that are lean, flexible and configurable, thus making IoT infrastructure agile and scalable.
Complete Internet of Things (IoT) embedded device security is not just about the device but involves the entire product’s identity, data and control integrity, and services traversing the cloud. A device can no longer be looked at as an island; it is a part of a system. In fact, given the cross-domain interactions enabled by IoT it could be a part of many systems. Also, depending on where the device is deployed, for example, in the office building versus a factory floor or oil field, security ha...
An IoT product’s log files speak volumes about what’s happening with your products in the field, pinpointing current and potential issues, and enabling you to predict failures and save millions of dollars in inventory. But until recently, no one knew how to listen. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Dan Gettens, Chief Research Officer at OnProcess, will discuss recent research by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and OnProcess Technology, where MIT created a new, breakthrough analytics model f...
Fifty billion connected devices and still no winning protocols standards. HTTP, WebSockets, MQTT, and CoAP seem to be leading in the IoT protocol race at the moment but many more protocols are getting introduced on a regular basis. Each protocol has its pros and cons depending on the nature of the communications. Does there really need to be only one protocol to rule them all? Of course not. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Chris Matthieu, co-founder and CTO of Octoblu, walk you through how Oct...
There are several IoTs: the Industrial Internet, Consumer Wearables, Wearables and Healthcare, Supply Chains, and the movement toward Smart Grids, Cities, Regions, and Nations. There are competing communications standards every step of the way, a bewildering array of sensors and devices, and an entire world of competing data analytics platforms. To some this appears to be chaos. In this power panel at @ThingsExpo, moderated by Conference Chair Roger Strukhoff, Bradley Holt, Developer Advocate a...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Bsquare has been named “Silver Sponsor” of SYS-CON's @ThingsExpo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. For more than two decades, Bsquare has helped its customers extract business value from a broad array of physical assets by making them intelligent, connecting them, and using the data they generate to optimize business processes.
There is little doubt that Big Data solutions will have an increasing role in the Enterprise IT mainstream over time. Big Data at Cloud Expo - to be held November 1-3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA - has announced its Call for Papers is open. Cloud computing is being adopted in one form or another by 94% of enterprises today. Tens of billions of new devices are being connected to The Internet of Things. And Big Data is driving this bus. An exponential increase is...
The Internet of Things will challenge the status quo of how IT and development organizations operate. Or will it? Certainly the fog layer of IoT requires special insights about data ontology, security and transactional integrity. But the developmental challenges are the same: People, Process and Platform and how we integrate our thinking to solve complicated problems. In his session at 19th Cloud Expo, Craig Sproule, CEO of Metavine, will demonstrate how to move beyond today's coding paradigm ...
IoT offers a value of almost $4 trillion to the manufacturing industry through platforms that can improve margins, optimize operations & drive high performance work teams. By using IoT technologies as a foundation, manufacturing customers are integrating worker safety with manufacturing systems, driving deep collaboration and utilizing analytics to exponentially increased per-unit margins. However, as Benoit Lheureux, the VP for Research at Gartner points out, “IoT project implementers often ...
So, you bought into the current machine learning craze and went on to collect millions/billions of records from this promising new data source. Now, what do you do with them? Too often, the abundance of data quickly turns into an abundance of problems. How do you extract that "magic essence" from your data without falling into the common pitfalls? In her session at @ThingsExpo, Natalia Ponomareva, Software Engineer at Google, provided tips on how to be successful in large scale machine learning...
The Jevons Paradox suggests that when technological advances increase efficiency of a resource, it results in an overall increase in consumption. Writing on the increased use of coal as a result of technological improvements, 19th-century economist William Stanley Jevons found that these improvements led to the development of new ways to utilize coal. In his session at 19th Cloud Expo, Mark Thiele, Chief Strategy Officer for Apcera, will compare the Jevons Paradox to modern-day enterprise IT, e...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Roundee / LinearHub will exhibit at the WebRTC Summit at @ThingsExpo, which will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. LinearHub provides Roundee Service, a smart platform for enterprise video conferencing with enhanced features such as automatic recording and transcription service. Slack users can integrate Roundee to their team via Slack’s App Directory, and '/roundee' command lets your video conference ...
In his general session at 18th Cloud Expo, Lee Atchison, Principal Cloud Architect and Advocate at New Relic, discussed cloud as a ‘better data center’ and how it adds new capacity (faster) and improves application availability (redundancy). The cloud is a ‘Dynamic Tool for Dynamic Apps’ and resource allocation is an integral part of your application architecture, so use only the resources you need and allocate /de-allocate resources on the fly.
Digital transformation is too big and important for our future success to not understand the rules that apply to it. The first three rules for winning in this age of hyper-digital transformation are: Advantages in speed, analytics and operational tempos must be captured by implementing an optimized information logistics system (OILS) Real-time operational tempos (IT, people and business processes) must be achieved Businesses that can "analyze data and act and with speed" will dominate those t...