Click here to close now.



Welcome!

Apache Authors: William Schmarzo, Christopher Harrold, Elizabeth White, Talend Inc., Adrian Bridgwater

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
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 ...
The cloud market growth today is largely in public clouds. While there is a lot of spend in IT departments in virtualization, these aren’t yet translating into a true “cloud” experience within the enterprise. What is stopping the growth of the “private cloud” market? In his general session at 18th Cloud Expo, Nara Rajagopalan, CEO of Accelerite, explored the challenges in deploying, managing, and getting adoption for a private cloud within an enterprise. What are the key differences between wh...
SYS-CON Events has announced today that Roger Strukhoff has been named conference chair of Cloud Expo and @ThingsExpo 2016 Silicon Valley. The 19th Cloud Expo and 6th @ThingsExpo will take place on November 1-3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA. "The Internet of Things brings trillions of dollars of opportunity to developers and enterprise IT, no matter how you measure it," stated Roger Strukhoff. "More importantly, it leverages the power of devices and the Interne...
"We work in the area of Big Data analytics and Big Data analytics is a very crowded space - you have Hadoop, ETL, warehousing, visualization and there's a lot of effort trying to get these tools to talk to each other," explained Mukund Deshpande, head of the Analytics practice at Accelerite, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 18th Cloud Expo, held June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
The idea of comparing data in motion (at the sensor level) to data at rest (in a Big Data server warehouse) with predictive analytics in the cloud is very appealing to the industrial IoT sector. The problem Big Data vendors have, however, is access to that data in motion at the sensor location. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Scott Allen, CMO of FreeWave, discussed how as IoT is increasingly adopted by industrial markets, there is going to be an increased demand for sensor data from the outermos...
UAS, drones or unmanned aircraft, no matter what you call them — this was their week. Our news stream was flooded with updates on the newly announced rules and regulations for commercial UAS from the FAA. So, naturally we have dedicated this week’s top news round up to highlight some of our favorite UAS stories.
Internet of @ThingsExpo has announced today that Chris Matthieu has been named tech chair of Internet of @ThingsExpo 2016 Silicon Valley. The 6thInternet of @ThingsExpo will take place on November 1–3, 2016, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
Basho Technologies has announced the latest release of Basho Riak TS, version 1.3. Riak TS is an enterprise-grade NoSQL database optimized for Internet of Things (IoT). The open source version enables developers to download the software for free and use it in production as well as make contributions to the code and develop applications around Riak TS. Enhancements to Riak TS make it quick, easy and cost-effective to spin up an instance to test new ideas and build IoT applications. In addition to...
CenturyLink has announced that application server solutions from GENBAND are now available as part of CenturyLink’s Networx contracts. The General Services Administration (GSA)’s Networx program includes the largest telecommunications contract vehicles ever awarded by the federal government. CenturyLink recently secured an extension through spring 2020 of its offerings available to federal government agencies via GSA’s Networx Universal and Enterprise contracts. GENBAND’s EXPERiUS™ Application...
In addition to all the benefits, IoT is also bringing new kind of customer experience challenges - cars that unlock themselves, thermostats turning houses into saunas and baby video monitors broadcasting over the internet. This list can only increase because while IoT services should be intuitive and simple to use, the delivery ecosystem is a myriad of potential problems as IoT explodes complexity. So finding a performance issue is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.
When people aren’t talking about VMs and containers, they’re talking about serverless architecture. Serverless is about no maintenance. It means you are not worried about low-level infrastructural and operational details. An event-driven serverless platform is a great use case for IoT. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Animesh Singh, an STSM and Lead for IBM Cloud Platform and Infrastructure, will detail how to build a distributed serverless, polyglot, microservices framework using open source tec...
Presidio has received the 2015 EMC Partner Services Quality Award from EMC Corporation for achieving outstanding service excellence and customer satisfaction as measured by the EMC Partner Services Quality (PSQ) program. Presidio was also honored as the 2015 EMC Americas Marketing Excellence Partner of the Year and 2015 Mid-Market East Partner of the Year. The EMC PSQ program is a project-specific survey program designed for partners with Service Partner designations to solicit customer feedbac...
Apixio Inc. has raised $19.3 million in Series D venture capital funding led by SSM Partners with participation from First Analysis, Bain Capital Ventures and Apixio’s largest angel investor. Apixio will dedicate the proceeds toward advancing and scaling products powered by its cognitive computing platform, further enabling insights for optimal patient care. The Series D funding comes as Apixio experiences strong momentum and increasing demand for its HCC Profiler solution, which mines unstruc...
The IoT is changing the way enterprises conduct business. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Eric Hoffman, Vice President at EastBanc Technologies, discussed how businesses can gain an edge over competitors by empowering consumers to take control through IoT. He cited examples such as a Washington, D.C.-based sports club that leveraged IoT and the cloud to develop a comprehensive booking system. He also highlighted how IoT can revitalize and restore outdated business models, making them profitable ...
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 ...
"delaPlex is a software development company. We do team-based outsourcing development," explained Mark Rivers, COO and Co-founder of delaPlex Software, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 18th Cloud Expo, held June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY.
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.
Connected devices and the industrial internet are growing exponentially every year with Cisco expecting 50 billion devices to be in operation by 2020. In this period of growth, location-based insights are becoming invaluable to many businesses as they adopt new connected technologies. Knowing when and where these devices connect from is critical for a number of scenarios in supply chain management, disaster management, emergency response, M2M, location marketing and more. In his session at @Th...
Machine Learning helps make complex systems more efficient. By applying advanced Machine Learning techniques such as Cognitive Fingerprinting, wind project operators can utilize these tools to learn from collected data, detect regular patterns, and optimize their own operations. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Stuart Gillen, Director of Business Development at SparkCognition, discussed how research has demonstrated the value of Machine Learning in delivering next generation analytics to imp...
In his keynote at 18th Cloud Expo, Andrew Keys, Co-Founder of ConsenSys Enterprise, provided an overview of the evolution of the Internet and the Database and the future of their combination – the Blockchain. Andrew Keys is Co-Founder of ConsenSys Enterprise. He comes to ConsenSys Enterprise with capital markets, technology and entrepreneurial experience. Previously, he worked for UBS investment bank in equities analysis. Later, he was responsible for the creation and distribution of life sett...