Welcome!

Apache Authors: Gilad Parann-Nissany, ChandraShekar Dattatreya, Michael Meiner, MC Brown, Amy Lindberg

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
Cultural, regulatory, environmental, political and economic (CREPE) conditions over the past decade are creating cross-industry solution spaces that require processes and technologies from both the Internet of Things (IoT), and Data Management and Analytics (DMA). These solution spaces are evolving into Sensor Analytics Ecosystems (SAE) that represent significant new opportunities for organizations of all types. Public Utilities throughout the world, providing electricity, natural gas and water, are pursuing SmartGrid initiatives that represent one of the more mature examples of SAE. We have s...
The security devil is always in the details of the attack: the ones you've endured, the ones you prepare yourself to fend off, and the ones that, you fear, will catch you completely unaware and defenseless. The Internet of Things (IoT) is nothing if not an endless proliferation of details. It's the vision of a world in which continuous Internet connectivity and addressability is embedded into a growing range of human artifacts, into the natural world, and even into our smartphones, appliances, and physical persons. In the IoT vision, every new "thing" - sensor, actuator, data source, data con...
The Internet of Things is tied together with a thin strand that is known as time. Coincidentally, at the core of nearly all data analytics is a timestamp. When working with time series data there are a few core principles that everyone should consider, especially across datasets where time is the common boundary. In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, Jim Scott, Director of Enterprise Strategy & Architecture at MapR Technologies, discussed single-value, geo-spatial, and log time series data. By focusing on enterprise applications and the data center, he will use OpenTSDB as an example t...
How do APIs and IoT relate? The answer is not as simple as merely adding an API on top of a dumb device, but rather about understanding the architectural patterns for implementing an IoT fabric. There are typically two or three trends: Exposing the device to a management framework Exposing that management framework to a business centric logic Exposing that business layer and data to end users. This last trend is the IoT stack, which involves a new shift in the separation of what stuff happens, where data lives and where the interface lies. For instance, it's a mix of architectural styles ...
The 3rd International Internet of @ThingsExpo, co-located with the 16th International Cloud Expo - to be held June 9-11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY - announces that its Call for Papers is now open. The Internet of Things (IoT) is the biggest idea since the creation of the Worldwide Web more than 20 years ago.
An entirely new security model is needed for the Internet of Things, or is it? Can we save some old and tested controls for this new and different environment? In his session at @ThingsExpo, New York's at the Javits Center, Davi Ottenheimer, EMC Senior Director of Trust, reviewed hands-on lessons with IoT devices and reveal a new risk balance you might not expect. Davi Ottenheimer, EMC Senior Director of Trust, has more than nineteen years' experience managing global security operations and assessments, including a decade of leading incident response and digital forensics. He is co-author of t...
The Internet of Things will greatly expand the opportunities for data collection and new business models driven off of that data. In her session at @ThingsExpo, Esmeralda Swartz, CMO of MetraTech, discussed how for this to be effective you not only need to have infrastructure and operational models capable of utilizing this new phenomenon, but increasingly service providers will need to convince a skeptical public to participate. Get ready to show them the money!
The Internet of Things will put IT to its ultimate test by creating infinite new opportunities to digitize products and services, generate and analyze new data to improve customer satisfaction, and discover new ways to gain a competitive advantage across nearly every industry. In order to help corporate business units to capitalize on the rapidly evolving IoT opportunities, IT must stand up to a new set of challenges. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Jeff Kaplan, Managing Director of THINKstrategies, will examine why IT must finally fulfill its role in support of its SBUs or face a new round of...
One of the biggest challenges when developing connected devices is identifying user value and delivering it through successful user experiences. In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, Mike Kuniavsky, Principal Scientist, Innovation Services at PARC, described an IoT-specific approach to user experience design that combines approaches from interaction design, industrial design and service design to create experiences that go beyond simple connected gadgets to create lasting, multi-device experiences grounded in people's real needs and desires.
Enthusiasm for the Internet of Things has reached an all-time high. In 2013 alone, venture capitalists spent more than $1 billion dollars investing in the IoT space. With "smart" appliances and devices, IoT covers wearable smart devices, cloud services to hardware companies. Nest, a Google company, detects temperatures inside homes and automatically adjusts it by tracking its user's habit. These technologies are quickly developing and with it come challenges such as bridging infrastructure gaps, abiding by privacy concerns and making the concept a reality. These challenges can't be addressed w...
The Domain Name Service (DNS) is one of the most important components in networking infrastructure, enabling users and services to access applications by translating URLs (names) into IP addresses (numbers). Because every icon and URL and all embedded content on a website requires a DNS lookup loading complex sites necessitates hundreds of DNS queries. In addition, as more internet-enabled ‘Things' get connected, people will rely on DNS to name and find their fridges, toasters and toilets. According to a recent IDG Research Services Survey this rate of traffic will only grow. What's driving t...
Scott Jenson leads a project called The Physical Web within the Chrome team at Google. Project members are working to take the scalability and openness of the web and use it to talk to the exponentially exploding range of smart devices. Nearly every company today working on the IoT comes up with the same basic solution: use my server and you'll be fine. But if we really believe there will be trillions of these devices, that just can't scale. We need a system that is open a scalable and by using the URL as a basic building block, we open this up and get the same resilience that the web enjoys.
Connected devices and the Internet of Things are getting significant momentum in 2014. In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, Jim Hunter, Chief Scientist & Technology Evangelist at Greenwave Systems, examined three key elements that together will drive mass adoption of the IoT before the end of 2015. The first element is the recent advent of robust open source protocols (like AllJoyn and WebRTC) that facilitate M2M communication. The second is broad availability of flexible, cost-effective storage designed to handle the massive surge in back-end data in a world where timely analytics is e...
We are reaching the end of the beginning with WebRTC, and real systems using this technology have begun to appear. One challenge that faces every WebRTC deployment (in some form or another) is identity management. For example, if you have an existing service – possibly built on a variety of different PaaS/SaaS offerings – and you want to add real-time communications you are faced with a challenge relating to user management, authentication, authorization, and validation. Service providers will want to use their existing identities, but these will have credentials already that are (hopefully) i...
"Matrix is an ambitious open standard and implementation that's set up to break down the fragmentation problems that exist in IP messaging and VoIP communication," explained John Woolf, Technical Evangelist at Matrix, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at @ThingsExpo, held Nov 4–6, 2014, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
P2P RTC will impact the landscape of communications, shifting from traditional telephony style communications models to OTT (Over-The-Top) cloud assisted & PaaS (Platform as a Service) communication services. The P2P shift will impact many areas of our lives, from mobile communication, human interactive web services, RTC and telephony infrastructure, user federation, security and privacy implications, business costs, and scalability. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Robin Raymond, Chief Architect at Hookflash, will walk through the shifting landscape of traditional telephone and voice services ...
Explosive growth in connected devices. Enormous amounts of data for collection and analysis. Critical use of data for split-second decision making and actionable information. All three are factors in making the Internet of Things a reality. Yet, any one factor would have an IT organization pondering its infrastructure strategy. How should your organization enhance its IT framework to enable an Internet of Things implementation? In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, James Kirkland, Chief Architect for the Internet of Things and Intelligent Systems at Red Hat, described how to revolutioniz...
Bit6 today issued a challenge to the technology community implementing Web Real Time Communication (WebRTC). To leap beyond WebRTC’s significant limitations and fully leverage its underlying value to accelerate innovation, application developers need to consider the entire communications ecosystem.
The definition of IoT is not new, in fact it’s been around for over a decade. What has changed is the public's awareness that the technology we use on a daily basis has caught up on the vision of an always on, always connected world. If you look into the details of what comprises the IoT, you’ll see that it includes everything from cloud computing, Big Data analytics, “Things,” Web communication, applications, network, storage, etc. It is essentially including everything connected online from hardware to software, or as we like to say, it’s an Internet of many different things. The difference ...
Cloud Expo 2014 TV commercials will feature @ThingsExpo, which was launched in June, 2014 at New York City's Javits Center as the largest 'Internet of Things' event in the world.