Mark Edwards, Crocodile Gold Australia -

681 views

Published on

Mark Edwards, Crocodile Gold Australia delivered the presentation at the 2013 Mining the Territory Conference.

Mining the Territory Conference is part of the Northern Territory Resources Week. It provides the perfect platform for stakeholders in the NT mining industry to hear the latest information on this booming region.

For more information about the event, please visit: http://www.miningnt.com.au/miningnt2013conference

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
681
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mark Edwards, Crocodile Gold Australia -

  1. 1. 11-12 Sept 2013 TSX:CRK OTCQX:CROCF FRANKFURT:XGC Crocodile Gold NT Update 7th Annual Mining the Territory Darwin Convention Centre
  2. 2. 2 Forward Looking Statement This presentation contains forward-looking statements under Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the development potential and timetable of the projects; the Company‟s ability to raise additional funds as necessary; the future price of gold; the estimation of mineral resources; conclusions of economic evaluation (including scoping studies); the realization of mineral resource estimates; the timing and amount of estimated future production, development and exploration; costs of future activities; capital and operating expenditures; success of exploration activities; mining or processing issues; currency exchange rates; government regulation of mining operations; and environmental risks. Generally, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made. Estimates regarding the anticipated timing, amount and cost of mining at the projects are based on assumptions underlying mineral resource estimates and the realization of such estimates; results of previous mining activities at the projects, and detailed research and analysis completed by independent of the Company; research and estimates regarding the timing of delivery for long-lead items; knowledge regarding the factors consultants and management involved in building a mine and other factors described in the technical reports and Annual Information Form filed under the profile of the Company on SEDAR. Capital and operating cost estimates are based on results of previous mining activities, research of the Company and independent consultants, recent estimates of construction and mining costs and other factors that are set out in the scoping study. Production estimates are based on mine plans and production schedules, which have been developed by the Company‟s personnel and independent consultants. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to risks related to: timing and availability of external financing on acceptable terms; unexpected events and delays during construction, expansion and start-up; variations in ore grade and recovery rates; receipt and revocation of government approvals; actual results of exploration and mining activities; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; future prices of gold; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements except in accordance with applicable securities laws. Investors are advised that National Instrument NI 43-101 of the Canadian Securities Administrators requires that each category of mineral reserves and mineral resources be reported separately. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Due to the uncertainty of measured, indicated or inferred mineral resources, these mineral resources may never be upgraded to proven and probable mineral reserves. Non-GAAP Measures Crocodile Gold believes that investors use certain indicators to assess gold mining companies. The indicators are intended to provide additional information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards. “Cash Cost per Ounce” is a non-GAAP performance measure which could provide an indication of the mining and processing efficiency at the operations. It is determined by dividing the operating expenses, excluding stock-based compensation allocated to the operating expense and next of silver revenue, by the number of ounces of gold sold. There are variations in the method of computation of „cash cost per ounce” as determined by the Company compared with other mining companies. Qualified Person Mark Edwards, MAusIMM (CP) of Crocodile Gold Australia Operations is a “qualified person” as such term is defined in National Instrument 43-101 and has reviewed and approved the technical information and data included in this presentation. Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated or Inferred Resources The information presented uses the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize these terms. “Inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their economic and legal feasibility. 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. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.
  3. 3. 3 Overview • Cosmo Mine Up-date • Resource and Reserve Up-date • Exploration Up-date – 2012 and 2013 • Strategic Partnerships • Shares: 406.4M • Market Cap: $58.9M • Cash (13/06/13): $28.8M • 52 Week trading: $0.07-$0.42 • Listed TSX (CRK) QTCQX (CROCF)
  4. 4. 4 NT Operations Moline Cosmo Mill
  5. 5. 5 Cosmo Up-date – Project Timeline May 30th Portal Commenced November – Crocodile Gold Operations commence, starting Brocks/Howley September – work commenced on pipeline to Alligator July – Raise bore was drilled F1 Discovered February – Cosmo Resource model up-dated March – Cosmo structural model completed December – Tender awarded to HWE September – New GC model completed November – Review of Cosmo Model September – Water finally removed from Cosmo Pit September – First ore mined October – First ore milled January – First GC Block Model completed March – Commercial Production declared July – New Cosmo Resource Model Released
  6. 6. 6 Cosmo Up-date – Project Timeline May 30th Portal Commenced September – First ore mined March – Commercial Production declared July – New Cosmo Resource Model Released
  7. 7. 7 Cosmo – the beginning • Portal was cut at Cosmo in 30th May 2010 – still de- watering pit • Very little historical mine data available • Company was still drilling deeper areas of the deposit (+1,000m below surface) • Structural study commissioned
  8. 8. 8 Cosmo - 2005 Cosmo Portal
  9. 9. 9 Cosmo - 2010 Cosmo Portal
  10. 10. 10 Cosmo - 2011 Cosmo Portal
  11. 11. 11 Cosmo - 2012 Cosmo Portal
  12. 12. 12 Cosmo Mine – The Importance of Structure • March 2011 the Cosmo Pit was partially dry additional faces were available • Crocodile Gold commissioned structural review of Cosmo Mine • This review identified several lode parallel faults, one (F10) is used as a marker horizon now • North (and south) dipping faults were identified • The major F1 Fault had not been identified at this stage, this came in July when drilling a raise bore
  13. 13. 13 Cosmo Mine – The Importance of Structure • During the drilling of the first raise bore in July 2011, the east west trending feature was first seen, when the pit walls were mapped this feature, the F1 Fault, was discovered • Previous wireframing had shown something was present, but not fully understood • F1 Fault is now critical in understanding of grade distribution in Cosmo Mine
  14. 14. 14 Cosmo Mine – F1 Fault • The F1 Fault is critical in understanding the mine-ability of the deposit • Footwall lodes are less complicated with good continuity of mineralisation • Hangingwall lodes are very structurally complex, but provide opportunities for large tonnes in folded zones • Understanding repetition of thrust faults opens up other areas for exploration potential
  15. 15. 15 July 2013 after Crown Pillar drilling and infill 955mRL level Cosmo Mine – Exploration May2013 BM 895 mRL Plan
  16. 16. 16 July 2013 after Crown Pillar drilling and infill 955mRL level Cosmo Mine – Exploration 16 ~550m drillhole 100 lode Most consistent mineralisation is in the footwall of the F1 Fault on the Eastern Lodes Limited drilling in Footwall of the Western Lodes, one hole at depth in fold nose Shallow drilling close to development indicates mineralisation is present Hole planned to test target at depth Cross section looking North
  17. 17. 17 Cosmo Mine – Geology Eastern Lode Cross Section Looking North 100 Lode 200 Lode 300/400 ‘s Lode OuterDolerite Zamu Dolerite Pmc Carbonacous mudstone Crown Pillar ce1055011
  18. 18. 18 Cosmo Mine – Geology • Enter words Here • 1020 level 100 Lode drive, looking south • F10 Fault contact on east and PMC contact on west • 100 Lode mineralization between the two marker horizons • Average Face Sample 2.4g/t Au
  19. 19. 19 Cosmo Mine – Drill Intensive • November 2012 a detailed review of the Cosmo model was completed • Looked at both Feb-2011 Resource Model and latest Grade Control models • Highlighted importance of drill spacing and confidence • The review confirmed • Better geological controls in new model • Variographic analysis suggested a continuity of less than 40m • Lower grade in model due to better domaining criteria • All surface holes needed to be relogged • Hangingwall material difficult to assess Longitudinal Looking West
  20. 20. 20 Cosmo Mine - Resources • 2011 Mineral Resource (@ 2.0g/t Au lower cut-off) • Measured + Indicated – 5,300,000t @ 4.6g/t Au for 776,000 ounces • Inferred – 5,654,000t @ 3.7g/t Au for 676,000 ounces • 2013 Mineral Resource (@ 2.0g/t Au lower cut-off) • Measured + Indicated - 4,101,000t @ 3.6g/t Au for 480,000 ounces • Inferred - 2,349,000t @ 3.1g/t Au for 237,500 ounces • Summary of differences between 2011 and 2013 • Some mining depletion (~55,500 ounces reconciled) • Shorter variography ranges means mineralised material no longer classified as resources • Better geological controls have reduced the grade • Hanging wall drilling not all included in latest up-date due to timing of results and complexity of mineralisation
  21. 21. 21 Cosmo Reconciliation • Between Jan 2012 and May 2013 – 550,000t of ore has been mined from Cosmo at 3.13g/t Au for 55,500 ounces • Large portion of this is development ore • Reserve model estimated 493,000t @ 3.12g/t Au for 49,500 ounces • Positive Reconciliation for that period of around 12% more ounces (12% more tonnes at same grade). • Mined grade reconciled to milling figures (gold shipped) • Tonnes mined uses void surveying technology to accurately pick-up open stopes • New model is performing against production
  22. 22. 22 NT Resource/Reserve - Update • Previous report was April 2011 – “Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves of the Northern Territory Gold and Base Metal Properties for Crocodile Gold Corp.” • Reports have been updated in July 2013 - five reports • Union Reefs Gold Project • Maud Creek Gold Project • Cosmo Gold Project • Pine Creek Gold Project • Burnside Gold and Base Metal Project Project Tonnes Grade (Au g/t) Ounces Gold Tonnes Grade (Au g/t) Ounces Gold Tonnes Grade (Au g/t) Ounces Gold Cosmo 700,000 4.27 96,200 3,401,000 3.51 383,800 2,349,000 3.14 237,500 Burnside 4,800 2.46 380 7,546,000 1.38 335,000 11,827,000 1.58 602,300 Union Reefs 3,022,000 2.43 236,000 4,262,000 2.23 305,500 Pine Creek 8,393,000 1.41 379,500 2,540,000 2.34 191,300 Maud Creek 7,733,000 3.50 870,600 4,192,000 2.55 343,600 TOTAL 704,800 4.26 96,580 30,095,000 2.28 2,204,900 25,170,000 2.08 1,680,200 MEASURED MINERAL RESOURCE INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCE INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE
  23. 23. 23 • New resource models were produced at • Cosmo • Union Reefs • Crosscourse (E-Lens and West Lode) • Prospect • Orinoco • Burnside • North Point • Glencoe* • Rising Tide • Pine Creek • International • Maud Creek NT Resource/Reserve - Update
  24. 24. 24 Measured and Indicated Resources • 2.3 million ounces M+I in 2013 report (3.2 million ounces in 2011) • Reduction due to: • Decrease at Cosmo, Burnside and Maud Creek (-445K oz* excluding mining) due to much more stringent parameters used in resource calculations NT Resource Update • Mining (-145K oz) • Sale of Mt Bundy (-665K oz) • Increase at Union Reefs and Pine Creek (+309K oz) through drill definition & remodeling
  25. 25. 25 NT Resource Update Inferred Resources • 1.7 million ounces Inferred in 2013 report (2.1 million ounces in 2011) • Reduction due to: • Decrease at Cosmo and Burnside (-483K oz) due to much more stringent parameters used in resource calculations • Sale of Mt Bundy (-351K oz) • Increase at Union Reefs and Pine Creek (+363K oz) through drill definition & remodeling
  26. 26. 26 NT Reserve Update Reserves • 534,000 Proven and Probable ounces in 2013 report (662,000 Probable ounces in 2011) • Reduction due to: • Open Pit and Underground Mined ounces of around 145,000 from Cosmo, Howley, Brocks Creek, Rising Tide, Mottrams and Princess Louise deposits • Reduction in Cosmo by 184,000 ounces • Addition of Maud Creek of 185,000 ounces • Addition of Prospect of 42,000 ounces • Reduction in Pine Creek ounces by 100,000 ounces
  27. 27. 27 Exploration Update - 2012 • Exploration focused on the development drilling at Cosmo Underground and Prospect Deposit in 2012, one small program was completed at Pine Creek • Union Reefs – 11,940m DDH • International – 466m DDH • Cosmo Underground – 23,246m DDH • Total Drilling – 35,652m DDH • Other activities completed during 2012 include: • Continuation of database work • Field mapping and sampling at • Bon’s Rush and Bon’s Rush East • Chessman/Red Queen/Chlorite Hills (Maud Creek) • Jenkins, Yam Creek and Mt Bonnie NE • Ban Ban Springs and Mt Ellison • Maud Creek and Cosmo (stream sediments) • New Resource estimations for • Cosmo (first passes final model completed in 2013) • International • Rising Tide • Maud Creek • Orinoco, Prospect/Crosscourse (E-Lens and Western Lode) Cosmo 65% Union Reefs 34% International 1% 2012 Drilling 35,650m Expenditure ~$11.4Million (includes Cosmo UG drilling)
  28. 28. 28 Exploration Update - 2013 • No Surface Drilling completed in 2013, major focus this year has been the NI43-101 reports. • Cosmo underground drilling to date is around 23,900m • Other work that has been completed: • Completed geospatial and document review databases (scanning) • Finalized sale of Mt Bundy to Primary Resources • Divested base metal properties to Pitchblack Resources • Stockpile analysis and documentation • Tenement review process determined • Joint Venture reviews/Strategic Partnerships • 2013 NI43-101 reports • Field trips and data reviews to • Goodall • Northern Burnside • John Bull (Eastern Brocks Creek) Cosmo 100% 2013 Drilling 23,900m Expenditure ~$6.9Million (includes all Cosmo UG drilling)
  29. 29. 29 Exploration History - Summary • Since CGAO started in 2009 over 129km of drilling has been completed • 43% at Cosmo (Surface and Underground) • 17% at Union Reefs • 17% Howley • 2013 Cosmo UG only Cosmo 43% Howley 17% Brocks Creek 3% Toms Gully 7% Union Reefs 17% Yam Creek 2% Iron Blow 3% Mt Bonnie 1% Rising Tide 4% Maud Creek 3% International 0% CGAO Drilling 129km Cosmo Cosmo Cosmo Cosmo Cosmo Howley Howley Brocks Creek Brocks Creek Toms Gully Toms Gully Union Reefs Union Reefs Yam Creek Iron Blow Rising Tide Maud Creek 22,746 32,651 38,390 35,652 23,912 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
  30. 30. 30 Exploration – Pine Creek - Gandy’s • Potential to drill one or two deep holes to test down plunge extent • Use this process to perform desk-top study of International/South Gandy’s/Enterprise underground potential • Require additional 2,000m of drilling to test down plunge mineralisation • 2,000m @ $380/m = $760,000 • Add resources to inventory and increase some from inferred to indicated North Gandy’s South Gandy’s
  31. 31. 3131 • Words Inferred Resources: 482,000t @ 2.9g/t Au, 45,000 oz 31 Exploration Targetsouth north North Gandy’s Pit Produced 276,646t @1.94g/t Au Exploration – Pine Creek -Gandy’s
  32. 32. 32 Exploration – Bon’s Rush Deposit • Similar stratigraphic position to Cosmo Mine • Resources 805,00t @ 2,3g/t Au for 60,400 oz • Significant greenfields work completed to date, potential for expansion • Soil geochemical work • Some limited RAB and RC drilling • VTEM survey showing conductors
  33. 33. 33 Exploration – Bon’s Rush 33 High Priority Target
  34. 34. 34 Strategic Partnerships • Crocodile Gold has a large tenement base with numerous deposits and mineral resources • Currently reviewing land holdings and looking for outside opportunities to develop
  35. 35. 35 Strategic Partnerships – Primary Gold • In 2012 Crocodile Gold signed a sales agreement with Primary Gold for the Mt Bundy assets • Tom’s Gully • Rustlers Roost • Quest 29 • Deal was finalised in 2013 • Crocodile Gold is now a major shareholder in Primary Gold • 16% of shares on issue • Companies are sharing Company resources where possible
  36. 36. 36 • Signed a Joint Venture Agreement in May 2013 • Polymetallic/Base Metal Deposits • Iron Blow • Mt Bonnie • Mt Ellison • Evelyn • Earn 90% interest in certain Crocodile Gold titles through; • $4 million in expenditure commitment over next 4 years • Crocodile Gold and Pitchblack working under a service agreement to reduce exploration costs and increase efficiencies. Strategic Partnerships – Pitchblack Resources
  37. 37. 37 • In the past 12 months Crocodile Gold has signed two MoU’s for toll treating at Union Reefs • Thor Mining for Spring Hill – Resources 6.95MT @ 1.74g/t for 389K oz (Indicated only) • Ark Mining for Mt Porter – Resources 355KT @ 3.0g/t for 34,200 oz (Indicated & Inferred) • MoU’s to date are non-binding but will require more work if bulk sampling is approved • Thor Mining have applied for a bulk sampling permit at Spring Hill to mine oxide only • May be financially possible to share some of our infrastructure such as office at UR and camp • Ark Mining have not progressed this any further than the MoU. UR Mill Spring Hill Mt Porter Strategic Partnerships – Toll Treating
  38. 38. 38 Gold Price 2013

×