2 May 2024
First Tin
Plc
("First
Tin" or "the Company")
Taronga Definitive
Feasibility Study Confirms Low Capex,
High Margin Tin Mine with
Attractive Economics
First Tin
PLC, a tin development company with advanced, low capex projects in
Australia and Germany, is pleased to
report it
has completed
the Definitive
Feasibility Study
("DFS") for its
Taronga Tin Project located in northeastern NSW,
Australia. The project is owned 100% by Australian registered
Taronga Mines Pty Ltd ("TMPL"), a wholly owned subsidiary of First
Tin Plc via an intermediary Australian registered company First Tin
Australia Pty Ltd.
Highlights:
· The DFS was completed at a conservative base case tin price of
US$26,000 (A$39,394) per tonne, with pre-tax NPV8 and
IRR of A$143 million and 24% respectively (post-tax A$98 million
and 20%)
· Pre-tax NPV8 increases to A$331 million and IRR to
42% (post-tax A$230 million and 34%) at the
current tin price of US$33,097 (A$50,739) per tonne as of
26th April
·
NPV8 has significant leverage to higher
tin prices
·
Scenarios around the
current tin price show the conservative basis of
the FS
Scenario
|
DFS Base
Case
|
Mid-Case
|
Current
Spot
|
High
Case
|
Tin Price US$/t
|
26,000
|
30,000
|
33,097
|
40,000
|
Pre-Tax NPV8 AUD
M
|
143
|
243
|
331
|
494
|
Pre/Post Tax IRR %
|
24/20
|
34/28
|
42/34
|
55/45
|
Pre-tax NPV8 Comparisons
at alternative Tin Prices (other factors kept constant)
·
Average annual production of 3,600 tonnes of tin
in concentrate
·
Pre-production CAPEX of A$176 million (US$116
million), includes A$28 million for an on-site solar and gas power
plant for behind the grid power generation
·
Low C1 site cash costs1 of A$18,192 (US$12,007) per tonne of tin
produced and all-in-sustaining-costs1,2 ("AISC") of
A$24,005 (US$15,843) per
tonne of tin sold, place Taronga in the lowest half, close to
lowest quartile, on the global cost curve
·
EBITDA margin above 50% at current tin
price
·
Significant upside potential already identified
from ongoing work:
·
Recent improvements in mineral processing provide
increased tin recovery
·
Potential for extended mine life from revised pit
optimisations, higher tin prices and near pit exploration
potential, including conversion of Inferred Resources
·
An add-on fine tin flotation circuit at a later
stage to improve tin recoveries by 5-10%
First Tin's CEO, Bill Scotting commented:
"We are delighted to deliver this Feasibility
Study which highlights the attractiveness of our low capex, low
risk, and high margin Taronga Tin project. The results
confirm that we have an extremely valuable and robust project that
can deliver a much-needed secure tin supply into a world undergoing
an energy transition and digital transformation.
"The recent jump in tin prices to
above US$35,000 per tonne, as the reality of constrained global tin
supply and low inventory becomes apparent, confirms that in using
US$26,000 our DFS has been developed on a very conservative
basis. While this provides comfort on the downside, it also
shows the tremendous upside potential as tin prices inevitably
respond to the structural change in demand and need for new
supply. To this price benefit, we can also anticipate higher
recoveries from ongoing mineral processing optimisation, as well as
the potential to extend the mine life.
"The value
from Taronga derives from its unique geology, mineralogy, and
geography. The ore body outcropping on a ridge at the surface
enables a low cost, bulk open pit mining solution with a low strip
ratio. The
coarse nature of the cassiterite enables rapid liberation with
basic crushing and gravity separation processes. This
delivers a range of benefits, quickly reducing material volume,
significantly enhancing the grade and enabling a low tech, low
capex and low-cost processing plant.
"Located in a historic tin mining
district, which reduces permitting risk, Taronga is close to major
transport infrastructure and the Company has also invested in
freehold land and water rights. The topography, on-site bore water,
and use of solar energy all contribute to low operating costs. As
anticipated, forecast costs place Taronga towards the lowest
quartile on the global cost curve.
"I would like to thank our extended
team in Australia for their ability to translate Taronga's natural
advantages into a simple open pit mine and processing plant with
basic equipment that enables a fast build and early generation of
cash.
"Tin is a critical mineral in many
jurisdictions with structural demand growth arising from its
fundamental role as the glue in electronics. With low global
inventories, geopolitical tensions and supply-side issues, there is
a clear need for new tin mines. The successful completion of
this feasibility study is a major step forward for our Taronga
project. We believe it is well positioned to be the world's
next new tin mine.
"Our focus now turns to completion
and submission of the environmental impact statement and moving the
project through the final approval processes with the regulatory
authorities, while concurrently moving forward our financing and
off-take discussions for the next phase of development at
Taronga."
Retail Investor Webinar
Bill Scotting, CEO, and Tony
Truelove, Technical Director, will provide a live investor
presentation relating to the results of the DFS via the Investor
Meet Company platform today at 10:00 am BST.
The presentation is open to all
existing and potential shareholders. Questions can be submitted at
any time during the live presentation.
Investors can sign up to Investor
Meet Company for free and add to meet FIRST TIN PLC via:
https://www.investormeetcompany.com/first-tin-plc/register-investor
Investors who already follow FIRST
TIN PLC on the Investor Meet Company platform will automatically be
invited.
Summary of the Definitive Feasibility Study
Results
Project
Economics
Tin is traded on the London Metals
Exchange ("LME") and Shanghai Futures Exchange ("SHFE"). The
average trailing 3 month tin prices and exchange rates for
different time horizons as of 26th April 2024 is shown
in Table 1.
Time
|
US$/t tin
|
AUD:USD rate
|
A$/t tin
|
Spot (26/4/24)
|
33,097
|
0.6523
|
50,739
|
1 Year Av
|
26,350
|
0.6584
|
40,021
|
3 Year Av
|
29,720
|
0.6951
|
42,756
|
5 Year Av
|
25,180
|
0.6969
|
36,131
|
10 Year Av
|
22,311
|
0.7359
|
30,317
|
Table 1: Tin price and exchange
rates for different time periods
Based on the 1 year (US$26,350) and
5 year (US$25,180) average USD tin prices and forecasts by the
International Tin Association ("ITA") and others that US$25,000
will be the new floor price for tin, a conservative tin price of
US$26,000 (A$39,394) has been used for the DFS. As of
26th April 2024, the spot price was US$33,097
(A$50,739), which highlights the conservative assumption used in
the DFS.
Exchange rates are more difficult to
predict, and using past averages does not have any real
significance going forward due to changing economic conditions. The
value of the AUD is partly dependent on the Chinese economy, as
China is Australia's main trading partner, and it is generally
predicted that China's economy will slow down from its high rate of
advance going forward. Long range forecasts are generally bearish
for the AUD. Based on this, the current rate of around 0.65
to 0.66 is considered reasonable and it was decided that 0.66 be
used for the current study.
The project's NPV is sensitive to
the tin price as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
- Taronga Tin Project - NPV8 Sensitivity to Tin
Price
At the current tin price of
US$33,097 (A$50,739) per tonne on 26th April, pre-tax
NPV8 and IRR are A$331 million and 42% respectively
while post tax NPV8 and IRR are A$230 million and 34%
respectively. At the conservative tin price of
US$26,000 (A$39,394) per tonne used as a base for the DFS, pre-tax
NPV8 and IRR are A$143 million and 24% respectively
(post-tax A$98 million and 20%). A higher price scenario
assuming a US$40,000 per tonne, implies a pre-tax NPV8
of A$494 million and a post-tax NPV8 of A$345
million.
Considering the recent movements in
the tin price and the ITA forecast that an inducement price of
US$33,800 per tonne is required to encourage new capacity,
a tin price of US$30,000 per tonne is a useful
mid-price comparable for this project. At this tin price the pre-tax NPV8 is A$243 million
and IRR of 34% (post-tax A$169m and
28%).
These comparisons are summarised in
Table 2:
Scenario
|
DFS Base
Case
|
Mid-Case
|
Current
Spot
|
High
Case
|
Tin Price US$/t
|
26,000
|
30,000
|
33,097
|
40,000
|
Pre-Tax NPV8 AUD
M
|
143
|
243
|
331
|
494
|
Pre/Post Tax IRR %
|
24/20
|
34/28
|
42/34
|
55/45
|
Table 2: Pre-tax NPV8
Comparisons at alternative Tin Prices (other factors kept
constant)
NPV sensitivity to other key inputs
is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
- Taronga Tin Project - NPV8 Sensitivity to Key
Inputs
Capital
Costs
The total pre-production capital
cost is A$176 million, which includes A$17 million (9.5%) for
contingency. Also included in the capital costs is A$28
million (16%) for a behind the grid solar facility with gas
generators, which will substantially lower the energy costs and
CO2 emissions over the life of the
project.
A summary of the pre-production
capital cost is shown in Table 3.
Item
|
A$M
|
Mining
|
7.1
|
Processing
|
42.1
|
Infrastructure (incl. renewable
power)
|
82.4
|
Owner Costs
|
3.7
|
Ops Mining Management
|
8.4
|
First Fill & EPCM
|
16.1
|
Contingency
|
16.6
|
TOTAL
|
176.4
|
Table 3: Summary of Pre-Production
Capital Costs
Operating
Costs
Operating cost estimates have been
included under the respective headings and are consolidated in
Table 4 and Table 5.
Cost Centre
|
LOM Cost
(A$M)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Treated (A$/t)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Treated (US$/t)
|
Mining
|
267.1
|
6.73
|
4.44
|
Processing
|
209.8
|
5.28
|
3.48
|
G&A
|
80.1
|
2.02
|
1.33
|
Total Site Costs (C1)
|
557.0
|
14.03
|
9.26
|
Rehab Bond
|
9.4
|
0.24
|
0.16
|
Off Site Costs (Smelting, Transport
etc)
|
140.2
|
3.53
|
2.33
|
Royalties
|
22.7
|
0.57
|
0.38
|
Sustaining Capital
|
5.7
|
0.14
|
0.09
|
AISC Costs
|
734.9
|
18.51
|
12.22
|
Depreciation
|
162.4
|
4.09
|
2.70
|
Full Cost
|
897.3
|
22.60
|
14.92
|
Table 4: Summary of LOM Operating
Costs per Tonne of Ore Treated
Cost Centre
|
LOM Cost
(A$M)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Tin (A$/t)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Tin (US$/t)
|
Mining
|
267.1
|
8,724
|
5,758
|
Processing
|
209.8
|
6,853
|
4,523
|
G&A
|
80.1
|
2,615
|
1,726
|
Total Site Costs (C1)
|
557.0
|
18,192
|
12,007
|
Rehab Bond
|
9.4
|
308
|
203
|
Off Site Costs (Smelting, Transport
etc)
|
140.2
|
4,578
|
3,023
|
Royalties
|
22.7
|
741
|
489
|
Sustaining Capital
|
5.7
|
186
|
123
|
AISC Costs
|
734.9
|
24,005
|
15,843
|
Depreciation
|
162.4
|
5306
|
3502
|
Full Cost
|
897.3
|
29,311
|
19,345
|
Table 5: Summary of LOM Operating
Costs per Tonne of Tin Sold
These costs place Taronga firmly in
the lower half of production costs worldwide and close to the
lowest quartile. Figure 3, reproduced with permission from
the ITA, shows the projected worldwide tin mine full costs in 2027
based on 2022 data. Taronga's projected full cost, including
depreciation, is US$19,345 per tonne, well below the forecast
US$33,800 tin price required to induce new capacity.
Taronga Projected Full Cost
US$19,345
Figure 3:
ITA Projected Tin Mine Full Production Costs 2027 (Based on 2022
Data, Used with Permission From ITA)
At these competitive costs, Taronga
is estimated to have an EBITDA margin of over 50% at current tin
prices as Figure 4 illustrates.
Figure 4:
Taronga Tin Project - Costs and Margin per Tonne Tin Sold at
Current Tin Price and Exchange Rate
Operational drivers and
approach
During the feasibility study, TMPL,
Mincore and the various sub-consultants examined several options
for the project via trade-off studies. Options considered
include size and scale of operations, owner operator vs contract
mining, several mineral processing, ore sorting and crushing
options, infrastructure locations, wet tailings vs dry stack, use
of waste rock as aggregate and grid vs renewable power
options.
The result of these trade-off
studies led to the following go-forward option which forms the
basis of the DFS:
1. The simple coarse
grained ore body, outcropping at the surface along a high sided
ridge, is amenable to low cost, low risk, bulk open pit mining,
with a low strip ratio and relatively easy grade control.
Resultant total material movement of around 10 million tonnes per
year, at an average strip ratio of approximately 1:1 provides 5
million tonnes per annum of ore to the processing plant.
Mining will be owner operator with a leased fleet, with ore mining
predominantly during daylight hours and waste removal mainly during
evening hours.
2. Conventional 3-stage
jaw-cone-cone crushing only during daylight hours, to reduce
night-time noise and make best use of the solar power.
3. Twenty-four hour
operation for the rest of the processing facility that consists of
single pass vertical shaft impact (VSI) crushing, jigs, spirals,
re-grind of tailings and middlings, clean-up by shaking tables and
final dressing consisting of sulphide flotation, re-grind, magnetic
separation and shaking tables. This simple,
low tech, low capex and low-cost processing plant
is enabled by the simple mineralogy and coarse nature of the
cassiterite.
4. The rock easily fractures along the quartz veins allowing
rapid liberation that quickly reduces material volume and enhances
the grade. This allows pre-concentration by crushing to 12mm and screening at 2.8mm,
with no ore sorting, as the crushing process recovers around 80-90%
of the tin to 44-60% of the mass, depending on starting
grade. Tin recovery will be initially limited to the coarse
tin gravity circuit as described above, to make the processing
circuit as simple and cost effective as possible. An add-on
fine tin flotation circuit could be included at a later stage to
improve recoveries by an additional 5-10%,
5. Stockpile the
relatively low volumes of sulphides, which contain significant
copper and silver, in a fully lined wet tailings storage facility
for possible re-treatment later.
6. Dry stacking of all
non-sulphide tailings material, with coarse rejects from the VSI
crusher (2.8mm to 12mm size fraction), coarse tailings from the
jigs circuit (0.3mm to 2.8mm size fraction) and de-watered
(filtered) fine tailings from the spirals/tables (<0.3mm) all
sent by conveyor to a dry co-disposal facility.
7. Use waste rock and
possibly coarse rejects for on-site aggregate requirements and
other local usage. Main markets are too distant for economic
transport.
8. Locate the main
infrastructure, including crushing and processing facilities,
workshops, waste rock emplacements and co-disposal facility, to the
north of the open pits to reduce visibility, noise and dust.
The admin buildings, power plant, magazine and security will be to
the south of the open pits.
A general mine layout is shown in
Figure 5:
Geology, Mineral Resource
Estimate and Ore Reserve Estimate
The Taronga deposit consists of a
series of sub-vertical sheeted
quartz-mica-sulphide-cassiterite+/-topaz-fluorite veins that vary
from 0.1mm to 100mm (dominantly 1-10mm) in width and have an
average density of 5 to >20 veins per metre.
Tin occurs dominantly (>90%) as
relatively coarse cassiterite (SnO2) that averages
0.3-3mm in size, occasionally to >10mm. The cassiterite is
dominantly hosted within the veins, with volumetrically
insignificant, very fine grained cassiterite sometimes found in
haloes to the veins.
The veins tend to occur in sets,
with four main zones identified as Hillside, Hillside Extended,
Payback and Payback Extended (Figure 6). The four zones
appear to coalesce into a single zone in the northeast (North Pit)
area.
Figure 6: Taronga Tin Project -
Interpreted Zones of Mineralisation
Newmont completed 33,350m of
predominantly diamond drilling in 357 drillholes between 1981 and
1984. TMPL twinned a selection of the Newmont drillholes
throughout the deposit which successfully confirmed the quality and
reliability of the Newmont drilling. TMPL also completed
several infill and extensional drill holes as well as 6
geotechnical drillholes. The total drilling completed by TMPL
is:
·
South Pit
area
4,694m in 43 drillholes
·
North Pit
area
1,639m in 16 drillholes
·
Geotechnical
670m in 6 drillholes
The distribution of these drillholes
is shown on Figure 6.
Based on the twin hole
drilling, independent resource estimation
consultants H&S Consultants Pty Ltd
("H&SC") concluded that the Newmont drilling is accurate
and reliable and is suitable for the resource
estimation.
H&SC subsequently combined the
TMPL and Newmont drilling data into a single database and used that
for their updated Mineral Resource estimate (MRE), as reported in
Table 6.
Category
|
Mt
|
Sn
%
|
Sn
kt
|
Density t/m3
|
Measured
|
33.0
|
0.13
|
44.2
|
2.75
|
Indicated
|
38.9
|
0.11
|
42.0
|
2.75
|
Inferred
|
61.1
|
0.09
|
51.9
|
2.76
|
Total
|
133.0
|
0.10
|
138.3
|
2.75
|
Table 6: Taronga MRE reported in
accordance with the 2012 JORC Code and Guidelines (see Appendix 1
for Table 1)
Based on the final pit designs, an
Ore Reserve Estimate reported in accordance with 2012 JORC Code
Guidelines has been defined as per Table 7. Details are
included in the Ore Reserve Statement included as Appendix 1 to
this RNS.
Category
|
Zone
|
Mt
|
Sn
%
|
Sn
kt
|
Proved
|
North Pit
|
19
|
0.13
|
26
|
|
South Pit
|
7
|
0.14
|
10
|
|
Total
|
26
|
0.14
|
36
|
Probable
|
North Pit
|
9
|
0.11
|
10
|
|
South Pit
|
5
|
0.12
|
6
|
|
Total
|
13
|
0.12
|
16
|
Total
|
North Pit
|
28
|
0.13
|
36
|
|
South Pit
|
12
|
0.13
|
16
|
|
Total
|
40
|
0.13
|
52
|
Table 7: Taronga Ore Reserve
Estimate Based on Final Pit Designs reported in accordance with the
2012 JORC Code and Guidelines (see Appendix 1)
Upside
Potential
The pit optimisations and subsequent
detailed designs are based on the initial recovery formula (average
54% recovery) that has since been shown to be far too
conservative.
As reported on 25th April
2024, ongoing mineral processing test work has shown a total
recovery of 60.2% for a low grade sample (0.10% head grade).
Crushing test work on a high grade (HG) sample (0.15% head grade)
provided a 91.2% recovery of tin in 44% of the mass, grading 0.30%
Sn. If the gravity concentration recoveries for the HG sample
can be shown to be similar to the 71.2% obtained for the low-grade
samples, then total recovery at a head grade of 0.15% should be
around 65-66%.
As these results arrived too late to
re-design the pits, waste rock emplacements, co-disposal areas and
tailings storage facility for the DFS, an updated recovery was only
used for the economic modelling. However, revised pit
optimisations (not used for the DFS) suggest that at currently
achieved recoveries of ca. 59%, the mine life and pre-tax NPV of
the project is likely to increase from that reported in the
DFS.
At a later stage an add-on fine tin
circuit could be included to improve recoveries by
5-10%.
Recently announced soil sampling
results suggest the presence of additional tin
mineralisation. Success from any subsequent follow up
drilling could result in the identification of new Mineral
Resources which could significantly add to mine life and the
project economics. There are several areas that require
additional drilling to define potential additional Mineral
Resources including:
1. Current Inferred
Resources
2. Potential parallel
zones immediately NW of the current pits.
3. Extensions to the NE
and SW of the current pits (mineralisation not closed
off).
4. Between the two pits
where recent drilling has returned previously unknown
mineralisation.
5. Potential parallel
zones to the SE of the current pits.
Enquiries:
First Tin
|
Via SEC
Newgate below
|
Bill Scotting - Chief Executive
Officer
|
|
Arlington Group Asset Management Limited (Financial Advisor
and Joint Broker)
|
|
Simon Catt
|
020 7389
5016
|
|
|
WH
Ireland Limited (Joint Broker)
|
|
Harry Ansell
|
020 7220
1670
|
|
|
SEC
Newgate (Financial Communications)
|
|
Elisabeth Cowell / Molly
Gretton
|
FirstTin@secnewgate.co.uk
|
Notes to Editors
First Tin is an ethical, reliable,
and sustainable tin production company led by a team of renowned
tin specialists. The Company is focused on becoming a tin supplier
in conflict-free, low political risk jurisdictions through the
rapid development of high value, low capex tin assets in Germany
and Australia, which have been de-risked significantly, with
extensive work undertaken to date.
Tin is a critical metal, vital in
any plan to decarbonise and electrify the world, yet Europe has
very little supply. Rising demand, together with shortages, is
expected to lead tin to experience sustained deficit markets for
the foreseeable future.
First Tin's goal is to use
best-in-class environmental standards to bring two tin mines into
production, providing provenance of supply to support the current
global clean energy and technological revolutions.
Technical Details:
Introduction
The Taronga tin deposit is owned
100% by Australian registered Taronga Mines Pty Ltd (TMPL), a
wholly owned subsidiary of First Tin Plc via an intermediary
Australian registered company First Tin Australia Pty Ltd.
There are no joint ventures or other encumbrances.
The deposit sits in northeastern
NSW, Australia, approximately 370km by road southwest of Brisbane
and 630km by road north of Sydney (Figure 1) and is secured by ML
1774 (valid to 21/12/2029) and EL 8407 (valid to 4/11/2028).
All licences are currently in good standing. A mining lease
application (ML 642) was made on 19/12/2023 for an area covering
the entire mining and infrastructure requirements (Figure
1).
Figure 1:
Taronga Tin Project - Location Plan
Tin mineralisation was discovered in
the Emmaville district in 1872 and was mined semi-continuously
until the mid-1980s when the tin price rapidly retreated due to the
collapse of the International Tin Cartel. A total of over
89,000t tin concentrates have been produced from the
district.
Initial work in the immediate
Taronga area, consisting of alluvial and eluvial mining of the
gullies draining the Grampians Range, where the Taronga deposit is
located, was undertaken intermittently between 1872 and
1924.
The hard rock deposit was originally
targeted by BHP who conducted exploration intermittently between
1933 and 1966, including excavation of an adit, diamond drilling
and surface trenching.
Between 1971 and 1978, the surficial
eluvial material on the south slope of Grampians Range was mined by
Minerals Recovery (Australia) NL using a scraper, trommels and
jigs.
The most intense phase of
exploration was conducted by Newmont Holdings Pty Ltd on behalf of
a Joint Venture with ICI Australia Operations, Endeavour Resources
and Pelsart Resources, between 1978 and 1985. This work
included 33,350m drilling in 357 drillholes, the excavation of
three adits, estimation of a mineral resource (pre-JORC), extensive
mineral processing testwork and mining and infrastructure studies
culminating in a feasibility study. The Newmont non-JORC
mineral resource estimate (MRE) was 37.6Mt @ 0.15% Sn (56,000t
tin).
In August 2013, Aus Tin Mining Ltd
re-evaluated and re-modelled the Newmont data and announced a
maiden Mineral Resource estimate (MRE) in accordance with the 2012
JORC Code and Guidelines of 36.3Mt @ 0.16% Sn (57,000t tin).
They subsequently completed a pre-feasibility study that returned
an ore reserve estimate of 22Mt @ 0.16% Sn (35,200t
tin).
TMPL owns approximately
25km2 of freehold land covering most of the deposit as
shown on Figure 1. Land use in the district is rural, with
areas of agricultural land and scrubland, plus substantial areas
degraded by the previous 100 years of mining activities. No
National Parks or Conservation Areas occur within the proposed
mining area. The nearest township is Emmaville, population
270, that is located approximately 7km to the southeast of the
deposit.
In late 2022, TMPL commissioned
Mincore Pty Ltd based in Melbourne, Australia, to be lead
consultants responsible for completing a Feasibility Study to Level
3 engineering standards (as per AusIMM guidelines, accuracy +/-10%)
on the Taronga tin deposit. Mincore retained several
specialist sub-consultants to complete certain aspects of the study
including:
·
H&SC Consultants - Geology and Mineral
Resource estimation
·
Australian Mine Design and Development (AMDAD) -
Mining and Ore Reserves
·
Pells Sullivan Meynink (PSM) - Geotechnical
Engineering
·
ATC Williams - Tailings and Water
Management
·
RW Corkery - Environmental
During the feasibility study, TMPL,
Mincore and various sub-consultants examined several options for
the project via trade-off studies. Options considered include
size and scale of operations, owner operator vs contract mining,
several mineral processing, ore sorting and crushing options,
infrastructure locations, wet tailings vs dry stack, use of waste
rock as aggregate and grid vs renewable power options.
The result of these trade-off
studies is the following go-forward single option and the basis of
the feasibility study:
1. Optimum scale of
operation of 5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) through the
processing facility at a strip ratio of approximately 1:1, with
around 10Mtpa total material movement from two open
pits.
2. Owner operator mining
with a leased fleet.
3. Twenty four hour
mining operation, with ore mining preferred during daylight hours
and mainly waste mining during evening hours.
4. Pre-concentration by
crushing to 12mm and screening at 2.8mm, with no ore sorting, as
the crushing process recovers around 80-90% of the tin to 44-60% of
the mass, depending on starting grade.
5. Conventional 3-stage
jaw-cone-cone crushing (largest on-site power draw) during daylight
hours only, in order to reduce nighttime noise and make best use of
solar power.
6. Twenty four hour
operation for the rest of the processing facility that consists of
single pass vertical shaft impact (VSI) crushing, jigs, spirals,
re-grind of tailings and middlings, clean-up by shaking tables and
final dressing consisting of sulphide flotation, re-grind, magnetic
separation and shaking tables.
7. Tin recovery
initially limited to the coarse tin gravity circuit as described
above, to make the processing circuit as simple and cost effective
as possible. However, testwork on recovering additional tin
from the fine fraction is currently in progress and will likely be
implemented once the coarse circuit is running smoothly, with the
aim of improving overall tin recovery by an additional
5-10%.
8. Stockpile the
sulphides, which contain significant copper and silver, in a fully
lined wet tailings storage facility for possible re-treatment
later.
9. Dry stacking of all
non-sulphide tailings material, with coarse rejects from the VSI
crusher (2.8mm to 12mm size fraction), coarse tailings from the
jigs circuit (0.3mm to 2.8mm size fraction) and de-watered
(filtered) fine tailings from the spirals/tables (<0.3mm) all
sent by conveyor to a dry co-disposal facility.
10. Use waste rock and possibly
coarse rejects for on-site aggregate requirements and other local
usage. Main markets are too distant for economic
transport.
11. Locate the main infrastructure,
including crushing and processing facilities, workshops, waste rock
emplacements and co-disposal facility, to the north of the open
pits to reduce visibility, noise and dust. The admin
buildings, power plant, magazine and security will be to the south
of the open pits.
A general mine layout is shown as
Figure 2 below:
Geology and Mineral Resource Estimate
The Taronga tin deposit is located
within the New England orogen in northeastern NSW. This
orogen is the most easterly and youngest orogen of the Tasmanides
system, which formed the south-eastern margin of the Gondwana
supercontinent. It was an active westward dipping subduction
zone active from the Silurian to Carboniferous periods.
During the Permian, eastern rollback of the plate margin resulted
in extension and formation of small rift basins.
Following cessation of subduction,
large volumes of I- and A- type granites were intruded into the
former accretionary complex rocks during the middle Permian to
Triassic. These represent the roots of a new continental
margin arc and are the last remnants of an active arc margin on the
Australian continent.
These granites are the source of the
mineralising fluids responsible for depositing the tin
mineralisation at Taronga.
The Taronga deposit is hosted by
metasediments of the Permian aged Bondonga Beds that have been
partially converted to hornfels due to the contact metamorphic
effects of the intrusion of the Triassic aged Mole
Leucogranite. The Mole Leucogranite is a reduced, I-Type,
highly fractionated, multiple intrusion and is interpreted as being
the source for the magmatic fluids responsible for most of the
mineralisation in the district.
Granite, interpreted to be an
apophysis of the Mole Leucogranite, has been intersected by
drilling at depth beneath the Taronga deposit, and several
non-outcropping ridges of granite, generally trending in a
northeasterly direction, are interpreted as underlying most of the
known tin mineralisation in the district (Figure 3).
Tin mineralisation in the district
comprises:
1. Sub-vertical sheeted
quartz-mica-sulphide-cassiterite+/-topaz-fluorite veins (sheeted
veins).
2. Greisens at the
apices of granite intrusions.
3. Quartz-mica greisen
lodes and veins, generally sub-vertical.
4. Eluvial or weathered
bedrock deposits.
5. Alluvial or placer
deposits.
6. Palaeo-alluvial
deposits or "deep leads".
A total of over 89,000t tin as
cassiterite concentrates has been produced in the district since
1872, mainly from alluvial, deep lead, and eluvial (weathered
bedrock) deposits around Emmaville. Production from lodes has
been relatively minor.
The Taronga deposit consists of a
series of sub-vertical sheeted
quartz-mica-sulphide-cassiterite+/-topaz-fluorite veins that vary
from 0.1mm to 100mm (dominantly 1-10mm) in width and have an
average density of 5 to >20 veins per metre.
Tin occurs dominantly (>90%) as
relatively coarse cassiterite (SnO2) that averages
0.3-3mm in size. The cassiterite is mainly hosted within the
veins, with volumetrically insignificant, very fine grained
cassiterite sometimes found in haloes to the veins.
The veins tend to occur in sets,
with four main zones identified as Hillside, Hillside Extended,
Payback and Payback Extended (Figure 4). The four zones
appear to coalesce into a single zone in the northeast (North Pit)
area.
Figure
3: Taronga Tin Project - Regional Geology
Figure 4:
Taronga Tin Project - Main Mineralisation Zones
Oxidation is very limited, with
relatively fresh rock occurring almost at surface. Deeper
weathering can be seen along some of the vein sets, which appear to
have been preferentially weathered.
The general structural trend is ENE,
parallel to the mineralised veins. Two subsidiary structural
trends are observed, one at approximately 90° to the main vein
trend and sub-vertical, the other sub-horizontal and probably
related to cooling and contraction of the underlying
granite.
A basalt layer forms a sinusoidal
zone that separates the North Pit and South Pit areas and may have
been a less favourable rheological setting for the
mineralisation. Slightly different elemental distribution is
noted on either side of the basalt, representing different
stratigraphic or litho-structural associations.
Newmont completed 33,350m drilling
in 357 drillholes between 1981 and 1984. TMPL twinned a
selection of the Newmont drillholes throughout the deposit that
successfully confirmed the quality and reliability of the Newmont
drilling. TMPL also completed several infill and extensional
drill holes as well as 6 geotechnical drillholes. The total
drilling completed by TMPL is:
·
South Pit
area
4,694m in 43 drillholes
·
North Pit
area
1,639m in 16 drillholes
·
Geotechnical
670m in 6 drillholes
The distribution of these drillholes
is shown on Figure 4.
Based on the twin drilling,
consultants H&SC concluded that the Newmont drilling is
accurate and reliable and is suitable for resource
estimation.
H&SC subsequently combined the
TMPL and Newmont data into a single database and used that for
their updated Mineral Resource estimate (MRE). There is
sufficient drilling data to allow for unconstrained modelling of 1m
composites (35,178 samples) via Ordinary Kriging to generate a
block model. The new MRE is reported for a 0.05% tin cut off to a
nominal depth of 300m below surface as shown in Table 1 and has
previously been reported in detail in RNS 3792M on 14th
September 2023.
Category
|
Mt
|
Sn
%
|
Sn
kt
|
Density t/m3
|
Measured
|
33.0
|
0.13
|
44.2
|
2.75
|
Indicated
|
38.9
|
0.11
|
42.0
|
2.75
|
Inferred
|
61.1
|
0.09
|
51.9
|
2.76
|
Total
|
133.0
|
0.10
|
138.3
|
2.75
|
Table 1: H&SC Reported MRE in
accordance with 2012 JORC Code &
Guidelines (see Appendix 1 for Table 1)
The tin block grade distribution
from the resource model is shown on Figure 5. The four main
zones can be seen in the South Pit area and appear to coalesce as
two to three zones in the North Pit area.
Mining & Ore Reserves
Sub-consultants Australian Mine
Design and Development Pty Ltd (AMDAD) conducted pit optimisations,
final pit designs, haul road design and mining schedules to obtain
an optimum mine design for the project.
Pit optimisations applied processing
and financial inputs nominated by Mincore and TMPL, and mining
parameters defined by AMDAD, to define the optimal mining
shell.
The pit optimisations are based on a
tin price of A$39,286 and a recovery formula nominated by
TMPL/Mincore that averages around 54% recovery. This formula
was based on partial results of an ongoing work programme and has
subsequently been shown to be too conservative. A new formula
has now been nominated by TMPL/Mincore that averages around 59%
recovery based on the recent mineral processing testwork
results. However, the pits have not been re-designed at this
stage due to time constraints. Revised pit optimisations (not
included as part of the main DFS) have been undertaken to show what
the effect is likely to be (see "Upside Potential" section
below).
The optimisation results indicate
that (Figure 6):
1. Shell 36, the
"revenue factor 1.00" shell, generates the highest undiscounted
cashflow, in a 103.2Mt pit with a total mill feed of 45.6Mt at
0.13%Sn. Each shell increment up to this shell will add value on an
undiscounted cash basis. Stepping out to larger shells will
progressively lose value on an undiscounted cash basis.
2. When cashflows are
discounted at 8%, Shell 30 generates the highest discounted
cashflow (DCF) for a "worst case" (no stages) schedule, in a 71.0Mt
pit with a total mill feed of 36.1Mt at 0.13%Sn.
3. With cashflows
discounted at 8%, Shell 31 generates the highest DCF for a
"specified case" with Shell 17 as a starter pit. This gives a
77.6Mt pit with a total mill feed of 38.2Mt at 0.13%Sn.
The specified schedule shells were
selected for preparation of pit designs. These shells included
adjustment within WhittleTM to ensure a minimum mining
width of 40m.
AMDAD prepared the practical stage
open cut designs from the optimal starter pit shells and final
shells using geotechnical slope parameters provided by PSM, and
ramp widths nominated by TMPL. A starter pit design and final
pit design were prepared for both the North Pit and South Pit. The
designs included:
North Pit
·
Exit at 870mRL for both starter pit and final
pit
·
Geotechnical berm at 910mRL on the south
wall
South Pit
·
Starter Pit is of a smaller scale than Shell 17,
related to narrow widths in this shell
Final designs are shown in Figure
7.
Figure 5:
Optimised Starter (Shell 17) and Final (Shell 31) Proposed Pits,
Taronga
Figure 6:
Starter and Final Pit Designs, Taronga
A detailed life of mine schedule was
prepared by AMDAD based on the open cut and WRE designs. This
schedule includes the following features:
·
Processing plant ramps up over 9 months
·
Mining ramps up to match the requirements of the
processing plant
·
ROM stockpile kept around 100kt to maintain feed
supply between pit stages, and a maximum size of 200kt
·
Peak processing rate of 5Mtpa, peak mining rate of
10Mtpa
·
Total mine life of 9 years
Mining costs were estimated using a
first principles cost model covering the following cost
components:
·
Labour costs
·
Fleet ownership and operating costs
·
Load and Haul fleet
·
Ancillary fleet
·
Contract Drill and Blast costs
·
Ancillary Activities including:
·
Grade Control
·
Slope Stability
·
Pit Water Management
The average mining cost, inclusive
of fixed mining costs, is A$3.84/t mined. This equates to
A$6.73/t treated due to the strip ratio and other
factors.
The mining costs assume Taronga will
be predominately owner operator, with only drill and blast
activities to be undertaken by contractors. TMPL has specified that
the operation will use a lean personnel model, with recruitment
targeting experienced and multi-skilled technical staff and
operations personnel to keep the headcount low and minimise labour
costs.
The mining workforce will
comprise:
·
18 management, supervision, and technical
staff
·
Clerical and General Assistant will be shared with
Processing
·
33 operators
·
Split across four shifts
·
Three ancillary operators will work dayshift, one
on nightshift
·
11 maintenance fitters
·
Generally working dayshift
·
Fitter numbers will increase periodically when
major rebuilds of the mine fleet are required.
The Taronga heavy equipment fleet
reflects a conventional truck and excavator operation, and consists
of the following:
·
140t primary excavator (e.g. CAT 6015) x
1
·
Working wider ore and waste zones in the North
pit
·
Will also excavate bulk waste zones in the South
pit
·
90t secondary excavator (e.g. CAT 395) x
1
·
Works narrower ore and waste zones in the South
pit
·
90t haul trucks (e.g. CAT 777G) x 4
·
Ancillary vehicles
·
Dozers (e.g. CAT D9 and CAT D6) x 2
·
Grader (e.g. CAT 14M) x 1
·
Water truck (e.g. CAT 745) x 1
·
ROM wheel loader (e.g. CAT 992) x 1
·
Other (e.g. service truck, tray truck, forklift,
scissor lift)
Based on the final pit designs, an
Ore Reserve Estimate reported in accordance with 2012 JORC Code
Guidelines has been defined and is shown in Table 2:
Category
|
Zone
|
Mt
|
Sn
%
|
Sn
kt
|
Proved
|
North Pit
|
19
|
0.13
|
26
|
|
South Pit
|
7
|
0.14
|
10
|
|
Total
|
26
|
0.14
|
36
|
Probable
|
North Pit
|
9
|
0.11
|
10
|
|
South Pit
|
5
|
0.12
|
6
|
|
Total
|
13
|
0.12
|
16
|
Total
|
North Pit
|
28
|
0.13
|
36
|
|
South Pit
|
12
|
0.13
|
16
|
|
Total
|
40
|
0.13
|
52
|
Table 2: Taronga Ore Reserve Estimate Based on Final Pit Designs
reported in accordance with the 2012 JORC Code and
Guidelines (see Appendix 1 for Ore
Reserve Statement and Table 1)
Note: The tonnes and grades
shown are stated to a number of significant figures reflecting the
confidence of the estimate. The table may nevertheless show
apparent inconsistencies between the sum of components and the
corresponding rounded totals.
Mineral Processing
A large amount of mineral processing
testwork has been completed by Newmont (1979-1984), Aus Tin
(2014-2016) and TMPL (2022-2024).
This work included a large number of
geological and mineralogical observations that concluded the
mineralisation is unique in that tin occurs almost entirely in the
form of relatively coarse cassiterite (0.3-3mm, occasionally to
30mm) restricted to a network of sheeted
quartz-mica-cassiterite-sulphide+/-topaz-fluorite veins within
hornfels or silicified metasediments. The veins have a lower
rock strength than the host rock, resulting in preferential
breakage along the veins during crushing.
These unique characteristics result
in most of the tin being liberated as relatively coarse cassiterite
during the crushing process, with 80-90% of the tin being liberated
into the minus 2.8mm fraction after crushing to 12mm followed by a
single pass through a vertical shaft impact (VSI) crusher.
This is equivalent to, or better than, most ore sorting results
obtained at other tin mines and projects, and at a fraction of
their capital and operating costs.
The work undertaken by Newmont
resulted in an estimated coarse tin recovery (excluding fine tin
flotation) of between 57% and 63% by the following
flowsheet:
1. Crush to 12mm (80%
passing 9.5mm) and screen out the minus 1mm fraction.
2. Dense media
separation (DMS) of the 1-12mm fraction, with floats sent directly
to waste.
3. Grind DMS sinks
(concentrate) in a rod mill to -1mm and re-combine with the
fines.
4. Two stage cyclone
classification to remove the minus 75 micrometre
fraction.
5. Gravity separate the
+75 micrometre minus 1mm material using a spiral
circuit.
6. Re-grind middlings to
0.3mm and re-circulate to cyclones and spirals.
7. Concentrates ground
in ball mill to minus 0.3mm and sent to sulphide
flotation.
8. Sulphide sinks go to
tables for final clean-up.
9. Mids from tables go
to GEC separator with concentrate sent back to sulphide flotation
circuit.
Tabling of the 10-75 micrometre
fraction recovered additional tin to a roughly 10% tin
concentrate.
Aus Tin conducted a limited testwork
programme to confirm Newmont's results and subsequently decided
they could use the Newmont results for their PFS and assumed a tin
recovery of 70% to a 55% Sn concentrate. They slightly modified
Newmont's flowsheet as below:
1. Use a blend of 70%
North Pit and 30% South Pit mineralisation.
2. Three stage crushing
(jaw-cone-cone) to p80 of 9.5mm.
3. Screen at 1mm and
send plus 1mm material to the DMS plant.
4. DMS sinks recombined
with the fines and sent to primary grind rod mill for grinding to a
p80 of 0.75mm.
5. Three stage cyclone
classification with secondary underflow sent to spirals and
tertiary underflow to slimes scavenging circuit.
6. Slime scavenging
circuit is shaking tables treating 10-75 micrometre
material.
7. Spirals are two stage
with regrind to 300 micrometres.
8. Concentrates sent to
sulphide flotation circuit.
9. Sulphide flotation
sinks re-classified by cyclone and fine screens and either returned
to re-grind or directed to dressing area.
10. Dressing by shaking tables and
magnetic separation.
TMPL has undertaken work on four
separate samples, with complete results from three returned to
date.
Three samples were collected from
the old Newmont adit in the North Pit area. A slot was
blasted from the southern wall and collected and crushed to roughly
45mm on site followed by blending and splitting using a rotary
splitter. The fourth sample was made by collecting core
samples from the TMPL drilling programme.
The initial sample was called HG
(High Grade) as it had an average grade (0.19% Sn) higher than the
average mining grade of the deposit (0.13% Sn). This was used
to examine various options for crushing and gravity concentration
and the final flowsheet it went through is not considered to be
optimal. It resulted in an average assumed recovery of 56%
tin to a 56% Sn concentrate.
The crushing work was conducted in
Perth by ALS Perth (conventional crushing), Gekko Systems (VSI
crushing) and Koppern (HPGR crushing). Based on the various
crushing tests, a combination of conventional three stage crushing
followed by a single pass through a vertical shaft impact (VSI)
crusher was decided as the go-forward option, as this provided the
highest tin recovery to the lowest mass.
It was initially decided to use the
minus 2.8mm fraction from the conventional crushing and the minus
1.4mm from the VSI. However, this was subsequently changed to
the -2.8mm fraction from both crushing stages in order to simplify
the screen circuit and obtain additional tin recovery.
The actual combination used for the
initial testwork was the -2.8mm from the conventional crush and the
minus 1.4mm from the VSI crush and the subsequent gravity testwork
was conducted on this sample. Thus, recovery will be
understated. Using the combined sample, a coarse gravity
recovery of 66% was estimated, with an additional 12% from a fine
gravity circuit for total recovery of 78%. As a fine gravity
circuit was the preferred option at the start of the testwork, the
gravity circuit was not optimised toward the coarse gravity circuit
and hence classification before the spirals was not undertaken but
rather was used after the spirals.
On the recommendation of our
metallurgical consultant Ron Goodman, it was subsequently decided
to keep the circuit simple and to initially focus on the coarse
gravity circuit only, keeping open the option to add a fine gravity
circuit once the coarse circuit is operating smoothly.
Based on the sub-optimal results
from the HG sample, a very conservative recovery formula that
averages 54% total recovery (based on 56% recovery at a head grade
of 0.19% Sn) was used for the initial pit optimisations:
·
Recovery = 7.3662 x ln(head grade) +
68.393
Building on the results from the
first sample (HG), a revised flowsheet was designed, and it was
decided to put three additional samples through a testwork
programme that closely reflects the actual design flowsheet.
These samples are:
·
LG: A low grade sample
averaging 0.10% Sn collected from a low grade part of the original
Newmont adit HG bulk sample.
·
HG2: A moderate to high grade sample
averaging 0.15% Sn taken from a sub-sample of the original Newmont
adit HG bulk sample.
·
VAR: This consisted of several
samples of quarter HQ core designed to get an average sample close
to the mined grade and composition and from throughout the
deposit.
The LG sample was taken end to end
through the proposed flowsheet and returned a recovery of 84% tin
into 57% of the mass at the crushing stage and 72% recovery for the
gravity separation stage for a combined recovery of 60%.
As expected, the VAR sample returned
a poorer recovery during the crushing stage (76%) due to the
crushing characteristics of quarter HQ core compared with a blasted
and pre-crushed bulk sample. The crushing recovery is thus
not considered to be valid and should be considered only as a
qualitative pre-concentration result. The gravity recovery
from this sample was shown to be 73%, very comparable to the LG
sample gravity recovery, even though the circuit was modified
slightly to examine different combinations of the main
components.
Based on these results, a modified
recovery formula was devised that averages around 59% Sn recovery
based on the new result of 60% at a head grade of 0.10% Sn (which
is below the average mined grade). This formula
is:
·
Recovery = 6.7472 x ln(head grade) +
72.896
While it was too late to incorporate
this into the existing pit designs, it was used for the subsequent
economic evaluations and is considered to still be conservative as
the recovery at 0.10% Sn head grade using the formula would be 57%
rather than the actual recovery of 60%.
The HG2 sample is currently being
treated and only results of the crushing testwork have been
received to date. These show that at a head grade of 0.15%
Sn, 91% of the tin is recovered in 44% of the mass. If a
similar recovery to the LG and VAR samples is obtained through the
gravity circuit, this would result in a total recovery of around
65-66% Sn at a head grade of 0.15% Sn.
Once complete, it is expected that
results from this sample will significantly improve the DFS
results.
Process Plant
The process plant design for Taronga
is based on a metallurgical flowsheet designed for optimum recovery
with minimum operating costs. The flowsheet is based upon unit
operations that are well proven in industry.
The key criteria for equipment
selection are suitability for duty, reliability and ease of
maintenance. The plant layout provides ease of access to all
equipment for operating and maintenance requirements whilst
maintaining a compact footprint that minimises construction
costs.
A full set of process flow diagrams
(flowsheets) and general arrangement drawings were created for the
DFS. Detailed process design criteria, material & metal
balances and a comprehensive mechanical equipment list were
completed using data emanating from the testwork.
Figure 7 shows a 3D representation
of the entire processing plant from the point of view of the ROM
Ore Feed to the Jaw Crusher in an elevated position in the
foreground. The tin concentrate plant is located on the lop left
corner of the model.
Figure 7:
3D Model of the Proposed Processing facility for the Taronga Tin
Project, Note Crusher in Foreground, Fine Ore Stockpile in the
Centre and Gravity Concentration plant in the background
A 3D model showing the proposed
layout of the gravity concentration plant is shown on Figure
8.
Figure 8:
3D Model of the Proposed Taronga Gravity Concentration
Plant
The process uses a combination of
four stage front end crushing (Jaw, Cone, Cone, VSI) to reduce the
particle size from 800mm to 12mm. A jigging circuit sees a
two-to-three-fold upgrade in cassiterite concentration. Additional
simple processing brings a low-grade concentrate into something
that is feasible to upgrade further to a saleable cassiterite
concentrate using a mix of spirals and tables with regrind
mills.
Based on the mass flows estimated by
the HG sample testwork, the process flow sheet consists
of:
1. Conventional three
stage crushing (jaw-cone-cone) to 12mm with a capacity of 1,450
tonnes per hour (tph) operating for 10 hours per day during
daylight hours. This will reduce nighttime noise and allow
the use of solar power whenever it is available. As this is
the highest power draw on site, this has the effect of lowering
total operating costs.
2. Single pass VSI
crushing and screening at 2.8mm with a capacity of 614 tph
operating 24 hours per day. The plus 2.8mm oversize fraction
(284 tph) is sent directly to the co-disposal site and the
undersize (330 tph) is further screened at 0.4mm.
3. The plus 0.4mm
fraction (198 tph) is sent to a jig circuit that returns 32.8 tph
concentrate and 165.2 tph coarse tailings that are sent directly to
the co-disposal site. The undersize is 132.1 tph.
4. The jig concentrate
is screened at 0.4mm with the plus 0.4mm fraction (16.4 tph,
maximum size 2.8mm) ground in a ball mill to 100% passing
0.4mm.
5. The ground material
(16.4 tph) is re-combined with the undersize from the screen (16.4
tph) and the undersize from the jig feed screen (132.1
tph).
6. This combined
fraction (164.9 tph) is classified using cyclones which removes
49.5 tph as minus 38 micrometre slimes (sent to tailings thickener)
and 115.4 tph underflow (plus 38 micrometres) is sent to
spirals.
7. This underflow is
screened at 0.106mm with oversize (57.7 tph) sent to a coarse
spiral circuit and undersize (57.7 tph) sent to a fine spiral
circuit.
8. Tailings from both
spiral circuits (159.8 tph) are sent to the tailings thickener to
recover water.
9. Concentrate from the
coarse spiral circuit (1.7 tph) is cleaned up by shaking tables and
the concentrate (0.8 tph) is sent to the batch dressing
circuit.
10. Middlings from the coarse spiral
circuit (47.3 tph) are combined with tailings from the clean-up
shaker tables (1.0 tph) and sent to the coarse spiral regrind
circuit (48.4 tph).
11. This is screened at 106
micrometres, with oversize sent to the coarse spiral regrind mill,
then returned to the deslime cyclone circuit and pre-spiral screen
(point 7 above).
12. The spiral screen undersize is
sent to a fine spiral circuit (116.3 tph).
13. Tailings from this circuit (84.2
tph) are sent to the tailings thickener.
14. Concentrate from the fine spiral
circuit (10.7tph) is cleaned up by shaking tables and the
concentrate (4.8 tph) is sent to the batch dressing
circuit.
15. Middlings from the fine spiral
circuit (7.0 tph) are combined with tailings from the clean-up
shaker tables (5.9 tph) and sent to the fine spiral regrind circuit
(12.9 tph).
16. This is classified at 38
micrometres, combined with tailings from the batch dressing
circuit, and reground to minus 75 micrometres (13.4
tph).
17. The reground material is sent to
the spiral cyclone classification and screening circuit.
18. Concentrates from the two spiral
circuits are combined (5.6 tph) and sent to the batch dressing
circuit.
19. Batch dressing consists
of:
a. Screening at 0.212mm
(212 micrometres) with oversize (1.1tph) sent to the batch dressing
regrind mill where it is ground to 0.105mm and returned to the
screen.
b. Undersize (5.6tph) is
put through a LIMS (low intensity magnetic separator) to remove
magnetic minerals (minor) and scrap from the processing
circuit.
c. The non-magnetics
(5.6 tph) are sent to sulphide flotation to remove
sulphides.
d. This removes 3.9 tph
of sulphides as floats which are sent to the sulphide tailings
facility.
e. The remaining
concentrate sinks (1.7 tph) are cleaned up using the batch dressing
shaker tables which produces a concentrate of 1.19 tph which is
sent to the concentrate thickener, filtration and bagging
facility.
f. The 0.5 tph
tailings and middlings are returned to the fines spiral regrind
circuit and recirculated.
This is shown schematically in
simplified format on Figure 9, and as a simplified process flow
diagram line drawing on Figure 10.
Figure 9:
Taronga Tin Project - Simplified Flow Sheet
Figure
10: Taronga Tin Project - Baseline Simplified Process Flow
Diagram
At a processing rate of 5Mtpa, the
simplified mass flow can be represented as shown in Figure
11.
Figure
11: Simplified Mass Flow Diagram for the Taronga Tin
Project
As noted above, the quartz veins
containing the cassiterite have a lower rock strength than the host
rock, which allows preferential breakage along the veins during
crushing. The coarse nature of the cassiterite then allows rapid
reduction in volume and increase in grade of the concentrate
through the gravity separation and grinding processes, which makes
the processing facility relatively inexpensive and operating costs
low.
The total estimated capital cost for
the processing facility is A$76.5M installed as shown in Table
3.
Item
|
|
A$M
|
US$M
|
Process
Plant
|
|
42.14
|
27.81
|
|
Concrete
|
3.99
|
|
|
Steel
|
2.75
|
|
|
Mechanical Bulks
|
5.63
|
|
|
Architectural
|
0.08
|
|
|
Mechanical Equipment
|
25.17
|
|
|
Piping and Valves
|
0.44
|
|
|
Electrical Equipment
|
3.01
|
|
|
Instrumentation / Control
|
1.07
|
|
Process Plant
Infrastructure
|
|
13.36
|
8.82
|
|
Concrete
|
0.23
|
|
|
Steel
|
0.04
|
|
|
Mechanical Bulks
|
0.54
|
|
|
Architectural
|
0.02
|
|
|
Mechanical Equipment
|
1.09
|
|
|
Piping and Valves
|
0.23
|
|
|
Electrical Equipment
|
3.35
|
|
|
Raceway
|
1.69
|
|
|
Wire and Cable
|
3.35
|
|
|
Instrumentation Controls
|
2.81
|
|
Process Plant
Facilities
|
|
3.45
|
2.28
|
|
Concrete
|
0.64
|
|
|
Architectural
|
1.07
|
|
|
Mechanical Equipment
|
1.73
|
|
Mobile
Equipment
|
|
1.00
|
0.66
|
Fresh Water Supply
Dam
|
|
0.08
|
0.05
|
Freight
Forwarding
|
|
2.12
|
1.40
|
Subcontractor
Overheads
|
|
14.39
|
9.50
|
Total
|
|
76.54
|
50.52
|
Table 3: Estimated Capital Cost for
Taronga Processing Plant
The basis for the estimate,
excluding subcontractor costs, freight forwarding and freshwater
dam, which are costed elsewhere, is shown in Table 4.
Category
|
Price
|
Percentage
|
P1 - Firm
|
A$39,795,231
|
66%
|
P2 - Budget
|
A$10,556,335
|
18%
|
P3 - Estimated
|
A$5,530,770
|
9%
|
P4 - Historical
|
A$1,112,513
|
2%
|
P5 - Allowance
|
A$2,949,157
|
5%
|
Table 4: Basis of Capital Cost
estimation for Taronga Processing Plant
The estimated operating cost of
A$5.28 per tonne treated has been derived from first principles
including staffing, electricity draw, manufactures recommendations
for wear and spare parts etc and is summarised in Table
5.
Item
|
LOM Average Annual Cost
(A$M)
|
LOM Average Cost/t Mill Feed
(A$)
|
LOM Average Cost/t Mill Feed
(US$)
|
%
|
Labour
|
7.54
|
1.52
|
1.00
|
28.8
|
Power
|
5.70
|
1.15
|
0.76
|
21.7
|
Operating Consumables
|
4.66
|
0.94
|
0.62
|
17.8
|
Maintenance
|
2.04
|
0.41
|
0.27
|
7.8
|
Reagents
|
0.16
|
0.03
|
0.02
|
0.6
|
Analytical Services
|
0.93
|
0.19
|
0.13
|
3.6
|
Utilities and Support
Services
|
6.97
|
1.40
|
0.91
|
19.8
|
Total
|
26.21
|
5.28
|
3.48
|
100
|
Table 5: Estimated Operating Cost
for Taronga Processing Plant.
The breakdown of the proposed mill
workforce is shown in Table 6.
Cost Centre
|
Role
|
Number of Employees
|
Roster Type
|
Process
|
Manager Processing
|
1
|
Day
|
|
Metallurgy
|
4
|
Day
|
|
Processing and Plant
Operations
|
24
|
Day & Shift
|
|
Laboratory
|
7
|
Day & Shift
|
Maintenance
|
Superintendent Plant
Maintenance
|
1
|
Day
|
|
Supervisor Mechanical
|
2
|
Day
|
|
Maintenance Personnel
|
12
|
Day
|
Total
|
|
51
|
|
Table 6: Taronga Processing Plant
Workforce.
The total power draw for the
processing facility is shown in Table 7.
Area
|
Installed power (Duty kW)
|
Absorbed or consumed power (kW)
|
ROM & Primary
Crushing
|
337.0
|
281.6
|
Secondary & Tertiary
Crushing
|
1359.5
|
1087.6
|
Screening
|
277.2
|
221.8
|
Ore Storage & Reclaim
|
54.7
|
43.8
|
VSI Crushing Circuit
|
1119.0
|
895.2
|
Jigging Circuit
|
268.5
|
214.8
|
Jig Concentrate Circuit
|
307.2
|
245.8
|
Scavenger Circuit, Spirals &
Regrind
|
1172.7
|
938.4
|
Batch Dressing
|
99.0
|
79.3
|
Concentrate Handling
|
79.6
|
63.7
|
CDA Transport
|
60.0
|
48.0
|
Fine Tailings Thickener
|
132.0
|
105.6
|
Fine Tailings Filter
|
158.2
|
126.6
|
Sulphide Tailings Pipeline &
Discharge
|
15.0
|
12.0
|
Water Systems (All items on
PFD)
|
349.2
|
279.4
|
Compressed Air Systems
|
150.0
|
120.0
|
Reagents/Chemical Dosing
|
10.3
|
8.5
|
TOTAL
|
5944.0
|
4756.1
|
Table 7: Power Requirement for
Taronga Processing Plant.
Power costs are estimated at
A$0.127/kWh and are derived from a mix of solar power during the
day firmed by gas powered generators for backup and during the
evening.
As the majority of treatment is via
gravity processes, the only reagents required are:
·
Flocculent
19,402 kg/year
·
PAX
1,313 kg/year
·
CuSO4
8,013 kg/year
·
MIBC
724 kg/year
The total cost for these is
estimated at A$158,524 per year.
A forward work plan has been
proposed for the next phase of development and includes the
following:
·
Finalising all testwork based on the current
flowsheet and investigate additional areas to improve the
recovery.
·
Completing the Detailed Process Design
Tailings Storage Facilities
Tailings storage facilities have
been designed by sub-consultants ATC Williams to conform with NSW
state regulations.
Based on the provided Process Flow
Diagrams (PFDs), four primary types of waste are generated from the
process plant, as follows:
·
Stream 1: VSI screen rejects (coarse rejects) -
materials screened out after being processed by Vertical Shaft
Impactor (VSI) crushers (2.31Mtpa).
·
Stream 2: Combined JIG tailings (coarse tailings)
- comprised of the dewatered tailings produced during the two
phases of the jigging processes, specifically the initial rougher
JIG process and the subsequent cleaner JIG process
(1.35Mtpa).
·
Stream 3: Filtered fine tailings (fine tailings) -
a combined stream with multiple sources including primarily the
fine particles from the slime cyclone overflows and the
unrecoverable materials from scavenger spirals
(1.30Mtpa).
·
Stream 4: Fine sulphide tailings (fine sulphide
tailings) - a by-product composed of non-magnetic materials that
are separated out using a Low Intensity Magnetic Separator (LIMS)
and the materials that are not recovered in the bulk sulphide
flotation process (0.032Mtpa).
These four waste streams are
highlighted in the PFD reproduced below in Figure 12. Streams 1 to
3 are to be co-disposed as a mixed material in a dry-stack landform
named the Co-disposal Area (CDA), while Stream 4 will be stored in
a sulphide wet tailings storage facility (TSF).
Figure
12: Main Tailings Streams
Based on the mass balance associated
with the PFD, the Life of Mine (LOM) tailings and rejects
quantities generated from the process plant are presented in Table
8, along with forecast as-delivered moisture content. The total
combined tonnage for coarse rejects, coarse tailings, and filtered
fine tailings (39.4 million tonnes) is specifically shown, on the
basis that co-disposal of these streams will occur in the CDA,
whereas the fine sulphide tailings (0.25 million tonnes) will be
pumped to the Sulphide TSF.
Year
|
Co-disposal Area (CDA)
|
Sulphide TSF
|
Coarse Rejects (tonnes)
|
Coarse Tailings (tonnes)
|
Fine Tailings (tonnes)
|
Fine Sulphide Tailings (tonnes)
|
0
|
97,479
|
56,763
|
54,907
|
1,340
|
1
|
1,741,835
|
1,014,280
|
981,125
|
23,945
|
2
|
2,350,394
|
1,368,647
|
1,323,909
|
32,311
|
3
|
2,298,917
|
1,338,671
|
1,294,913
|
31,603
|
4
|
2,280,129
|
1,327,731
|
1,284,331
|
31,345
|
5
|
2,341,716
|
1,363,593
|
1,319,021
|
32,191
|
6
|
2,282,637
|
1,329,192
|
1,285,744
|
31,379
|
7
|
2,335,415
|
1,359,924
|
1,315,472
|
32,105
|
8
|
1,961,304
|
1,142,078
|
1,104,746
|
26,962
|
9
|
664,315
|
386,834
|
374,189
|
9,132
|
LOM
Total
|
18,354,142
|
10,687,713
|
10,338,357
|
252,313
|
LOM
Total
|
39,380,212
|
252,313
|
Solids Content
|
92%
|
90%
|
83%
|
34.5%
|
Table 8: Taronga Process Plant
Tailings and Rejects
The proposed locations of these two
facilities are shown on Figure 13. The small sulphide TSF
will be completely lined with HDPE. These sulphides could
potentially be treated at a later time to recover copper and
silver, which preferentially report to this stream. The CDA
will only require lining of the downstream run-off dam
wall.
The proposed waste rock emplacements
have been designed by ATCW and are adjacent and to the north of the
proposed pits. These are also shown on Figure 13.
All facilities have been designed to
comply with all NSW regulations and to be able to withstand floods
and seismic activity as required.
Figure
13: Location of Tailings Facilities and Waste Rock Emplacements,
Taronga Tin Project
Water and Sediment Management
Based on the proposed processing
facility, it is estimated that a maximum water requirement of
around 17 litres per second (l/s) will be required to service the
processing facility and dust suppression requirements. TMPL
intends to source this from both surface and underground aquifers
and has purchased the right to 636 unit shares in the New England
Murray Darling Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources. This
allows extraction of approximately 636 megalitres (ML) per year
from underground sources in the district.
Water may be obtained from four
sources:
1. Southern "deep lead"
aquifer located approximately 5km south of the processing
facility. This consists of a palaeo-stream channel that has
been covered by more recent basalt, preserving the original
alluvial sediments. This has been mined for deep lead tin
deposits in places and is known to contain a considerable water
resource. An agreement to extract the water has been made
with the landholder. Flows of at least 7 litres per second
(l/s) have been located in water exploration bores.
2. Northern fractured
rock aquifer which is located within TMPL's 100% owned freehold
land and is immediately adjacent and to the north of the processing
facility. Two water exploration bores have returned good
flows, one at plus 7 l/s and one at plus 10 l/s. These will
be enough to supply the full water requirements if they are shown
to be sustainable.
3. Harvestable rights
surface water. The company owned freehold land
(~25km2) allows collection of a certain amount of
surface run-off, estimated to be around 180 ML per year.
Surface dams will be constructed to make use of this allowance
(e.g. see Figure 13).
4. Catchments from the
WREs, CDA and TSF facilities. No water is proposed to be
allowed to escape from these facilities and all water collected
will be pumped to the processing storage facilities and possibly to
an additional turkey's nest (facility with no catchment input)
located on the TMPL freehold land.
Kinetic leach column testing of the
various waste streams was undertaken between January 2023 and
January 2024. While much of the material is non-acid forming
(NAF), there is potential for leaching of some metals from the
rock. Even though these metals are already present in surface
water collected by the company, run-off into the local creek
systems will need to be avoided. Hence a detailed water
management plan will be required for pumping from the proposed
pits, WREs, CDA and TSF during periods of rainfall.
Figure 14 shows the operational
water management schematic.
Figure
14: Proposed Water Management Schematic for the Taronga Tin
Project
Design of the water storage
facilities are shown in the Table 9 (MWD = mine water dam, TSF =
tailings storage facility, CWD = clean water dam, CDA = co-disposal
area, WRE = waste rock emplacement).
Parameter
|
MWD
|
Sulphide
TSF
|
CWD
|
CDA Runoff
Dam
|
WRE-E Runoff
Dam
|
WRE-W Runoff
Dam
|
Embankment crest level
(mRL)
|
814.62
|
836.24
|
740.32
|
764.8
|
805.12
|
794.37
|
Upstream Batter Slope
|
1V:2.5H
|
1V:3.0H
|
1V:2.5H
|
1V:2.5H
|
1V:2.5H
|
1V:2.5H
|
Downstream Batter Slope
|
1V:2H
|
1V:2H
|
1V:2H
|
1V:2H
|
1V:2H
|
1V:2H
|
Spillway invert level
(mRL)
|
812.88
|
834.54
|
738.5
|
763.3
|
803.62
|
792.87
|
Spillway base width (m)
|
10
|
10
|
25
|
20
|
20
|
20
|
Total Embankment length
(m)
|
158
|
139
|
98
|
135
|
232.7
|
89.6
|
Maximum embankment level
(mRL)
|
814.62
|
836.04
|
740.12
|
764.8
|
805.12
|
794.37
|
Minimum DS Embankment level
(N.S.L)
|
790.9
|
801.55
|
727
|
747.6
|
786.1
|
776.07
|
Maximum embankment height
(m)
|
23.72
|
34.49
|
13.12
|
17.2
|
19.02
|
18.3
|
Embankment crest width
(m)
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
Bench Elevation (mRL)
|
800
|
823.4
|
731.4
|
756
|
796.48
|
785.6
|
Storage Area (at full supply level)
(ha)
|
1.05
|
2.60
|
1.77
|
2.02
|
2.10
|
1.99
|
Embankment base width (at maximum
embankment height) (m)
|
94
|
194
|
71.5
|
78
|
94.75
|
76
|
Storage Capacity (at spillway level)
(ML)
|
50.5
|
203.5
|
59.7
|
92.9
|
85.7
|
85.3
|
Table 9: Water Storage Facilities
for Taronga Tin Project
All facilities have been designed to
comply with NSW government regulations.
Modelling has predicted average
system inflows and outflows (averaged over the simulation period
and all realizations) as shown in Figure 15.
The median model results indicate
that runoff provides the highest system inflow (57%) of the total
inflow given the high average rainfall for the region and large
on-site catchments, followed by groundwater supply for the Process
Plant (43%). The majority of outflows (63%) comprise the
Process Plant demands, with spill from storages at 17%
(predominantly from the CWD but also from the WRE runoff dams),
followed by supply to operational demands (10%) (i.e. haul road
dust suppression and workshop washdown etc.) and evaporation
(10%).
Figure
15: Taronga Modelled Water Inflows and Outflows
Infrastructure
The Taronga Tin mine site is located
7km NW of Emmaville in Northern New South Wales and 353km from
Brisbane. The site is accessed by Grampians Road (Figure 16) which
is to be upgraded and widened to allow light and medium weight
vehicle access. A main site access road will be constructed from
the end of Grampians Road to the new process plant. This will be
suitable for goods delivery and product export. A secondary road to
the north of the site will connect to Schroders Road for emergency
access. In addition to the site access roads, service roads will be
constructed to provide access to site facilities.
Figure
16: General Site Layout and Access Roads - Taronga Tin
Project
All roads, bulk earthworks for
infrastructure and non-processing facility platforms will be
self-performed by TMPL.
A run of mine (ROM) pad for receipt
and storage of mined materials will be constructed to the west of
the processing plant and have a capacity of 29,500 tonnes. The
majority of ore will be delivered to the jaw crusher feed hopper by
direct tipping from CAT 777 trucks. The balance of ore
required will be provided using front end loaders reclaiming from
the ROM stockpile. The crushed and screened material is to be
stockpiled and fed into the process plant at a rate of 614
t/h.
Infrastructure and non-processing
buildings comprise the following (Figure 17):
·
A Security gate house with visitor parking and an
adjacent helipad will be built at the intersection of Grampians
Road and the main site access road, on the Taronga Tin
boundary.
·
An administration office located opposite the gate
house will provide for mine management administration and technical
services. It will include crib and ablution facilities. A medical
centre with undercover ambulance and fire services parking will be
provided adjacent the administration office.
·
A mine services area including heavy and light
vehicle servicing, truck wash, refuelling and management offices
will be located between the mine pits and the process plant. A
secure stores warehouse will also be located on the mine services
area hardstand.
·
Process infrastructure facilities consisting of an
office, complete with crib and ablutions, a laboratory, and an
operational store with maintenance workshop.
Figure 17
- Taronga Tin Project Site Layout
A photo-voltaic renewables power
generation plant will be installed to provide renewable solar power
for site facilities. This will be located to the west of the
administration area and accessed by the site boundary fence service
road. Gas generators and cryogenic storage facility will be
provided for power back-up. An 11 kV overhead transmission line
will follow the boundary fence around the west of the site to the
process plant. This will have take-offs to feed the mine services
area and the crushing and screening area. Appropriately sized pole
mounted transformers and switchgear will be provided at each
take-off, with distribution cables run on ladder rack to each
user.
Site internet connection will be
provided by Starlink with satellite dishes located on buildings as
required to provide effective high-speed internet access. Telephone
access will be VOIP protocol. Site communications will be by VHF
digital radios, either handheld or mounted in TMPL mobile
equipment.
A raw water facility of 79
m3/h is proposed for process and non-process facilities.
This will have two independent sources of supply. A bore
field to the south of the site in a neighbouring property (or
possibly located on TMPL's freehold land to the north of the plant
site), and a clean water dam in the north of the site. A centrally
located raw water tank installed at an elevation of approximately
RL 935m will provide one megalitre of storage. The clean water dam
will provide approximately 60 megalitres of storage.
Bore pumps will be connected to an
11kV power supply taken from the local grid if the southern
Borefield is utilised, or by diesel generators if the northern bore
field is utilised. The dam pump will be diesel
powered.
Raw water will be distributed by
gravity to the process plant with a take-off to the mine services
area for fire water and truck washdown. A take-off at the crushing
and screening area will provide spray water for the screens. The
raw water line will terminate at the process water tanks, with
take-offs for fire water, gland seal water and various other
uses.
A containerised potable water
treatment facility will be provided at the raw water tank. It will
be self-contained and will distribute water by gravity to the
administration building and the process plant, with a take-off at
the mine services area.
Sewage treatment facilities will be
provided at the administration, mine services and process offices.
These will be automated and self-contained.
An 80-bed accommodation camp will be
provided at Glen Innes for operational personnel requiring
overnight accommodation. The camp will include messing, dining, and
entertainment facilities. The camp will be connected to the local
power grid and the local potable water and sewage
systems.
It is proposed that the camp is
constructed early so that it can assist in the accommodation of
construction contractor's personnel. An existing farmhouse, located
within the mine site boundary, will be upgraded, and made available
for use as construction offices. There is sufficient space around
the farmhouse for additional portable buildings if required. In
addition, it is proposed to construct the administration office
facility early for use by the owner's project team.
During the early stages of
construction, the site will have few amenities available. It is
proposed that contractors will be self-contained, providing all
tools, consumables, power, transportation, and accommodation. A
water supply will be provided for contractor use on site and this
will be taken from the raw water dam. The dam will be constructed
early by TMPL to allow time for it to fill.
The capital cost to supply and build
the infrastructure and non-processing facilities, including
temporary infrastructure and construction preliminaries is
estimated to be $66,738,835. Table 10 provides a breakdown of the
capital cost estimate.
AREA
|
PLANT EQUIPMENT
|
VENDOR REPS
|
BULK MATERIALS
|
FREIGHT
|
DIRECT LABOUR
|
SUBCONTRACTOR INDIRECTS
|
TOTAL
|
Mine Infrastructure
|
221,343
|
3000
|
1,693,277
|
7,219
|
390,328
|
141,550
|
2,456,717
|
Off
Site Infrastructure
|
0
|
0
|
274,107
|
25,128
|
134,487
|
283,035
|
716,757
|
Site Preparation
|
0
|
0
|
58,500
|
0
|
0
|
1,365,876
|
1,424,376
|
On
Site Infrastructure
|
1,891,751
|
63,569
|
1,317,162
|
28,854
|
3,008,165
|
0
|
6,309,501
|
Run-off Water & Sediment
|
211,507
|
0
|
1,027,010
|
7,250
|
408,477
|
1,381,713
|
3,035,957
|
Fresh Water Dam
|
301,499
|
0
|
435,711
|
4,382
|
501,453
|
230,649
|
1,473,694
|
Solar Power
|
15,443,493
|
0
|
103,895
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
15,547,388
|
Gas
Generators
|
11,631,483
|
0
|
611,078
|
0
|
143,000
|
0
|
12,385,561
|
Non-process Bldgs
|
0
|
0
|
1,153,203
|
0
|
140,005
|
123,625
|
1,416,833
|
Mine Village
|
199,000
|
4,000
|
4,106,664
|
154,706
|
315,835
|
0
|
4,780,205
|
Warehouse & Laydown
|
0
|
0
|
258,809
|
0
|
36,380
|
31,250
|
326,439
|
Site Access Buildings
|
25,000
|
0
|
38,704
|
1,250
|
9,825
|
9,375
|
84,154
|
Emergency Response Buildings
|
0
|
0
|
187,786
|
0
|
33,040
|
17,200
|
238,026
|
Ancillary Buildings
|
0
|
0
|
27,110
|
800
|
4,185
|
1,125
|
33,220
|
Construction Support
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2,116,650
|
0
|
0
|
2,116,650
|
Subcontractor Distributables
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
14,393,357
|
14,393,357
|
TOTAL
|
29,925,076
|
70,569
|
11,293,016
|
2,346,239
|
5,125,180
|
17,978,755
|
66,738,835
|
Table 10: Taronga Tin Project
Capital Cost Estimate for Infrastructure and Non-processing
Facilities
The power plant is the most
expensive item at a combined installed cost of A$28M. This
has been fully costed in a separate feasibility study and will
consist of:
·
10MW solar farm
·
2MW BESS battery storage
·
8MW thermal gas engines
·
2MW standby diesel generator
·
Microgrid controller
This will supply up to 10MW solar
power during daylight hours at peak solar radiation firmed by 8MW
gas generated power during times with no solar input. This
will more than cover the peak demand of 5.3MW during the day and
2.6MW during the night.
Based on the average solar radiation
and maximum power use being during the day (when crushing is
active), it has been estimated that 53% of site power requirements
will be generated by solar power and 47% by gas power at an average
cost of S$0.125/kWh.
This will save around 14,780 tonnes
per year of CO2 emissions compared with grid
power.
Operation and Business Support
The scope and scale of the business
and operational support functions supporting TMPL's mining and
processing operations include the following functions:
·
Human Resources
·
Occupational Health and Safety, including on-site
medical and emergency response capability etc.
·
Site Services Infrastructure and Facilities, e.g.,
accommodation & offices etc.
·
Site Access and Security
·
Supply - Purchasing, Logistics and
Warehouse
·
Information and Communications
technology
·
External Stakeholder Relations (state and national
government/regulator focused)
·
General and Business Management, including the
General Manager Operation's office
·
Commercial functions.
These functions form a substantial
component of the operation's General and Administration (GA) costs
i.e. those "costs not directly associated with mining and
processing activities".
To establish many of the functional
areas, TMPL has elected to engage senior experienced personnel from
specialist third-party providers. They will provide a high level of
expertise for a relatively short duration to develop and embed the
required business systems, management plans, operating processes,
and procedures.
The costs associated with
establishing business management systems are part of the Owner's
Costs (capital cost estimate). However, to maintain the integrity
and relevance of these management plans, operating processes, and
procedures, i.e., business systems and processes, these same
external resources will be retained to provide oversight and
review. The costs of this support are considered in the
preparation of the operating costs.
Table 11 summarises the business and
operations support costs.
Functional Area
|
Personnel
Numbers
|
Operating Cost Per Year
(A$)
|
Human Resources
|
1
|
359,852
|
OH&S
|
2
|
351,920
|
Site Services &
Accommodation
|
0.5
|
4,045,980
|
Site Access &
Security
|
2
|
195,147
|
Supply - Purchasing, Logistics and
Warehousing
|
4
|
689,519
|
IT and Communications
|
-
|
476,781
|
General & Business
Management
|
5
|
1,969,786
|
Total
|
14.5
|
8,088,984
|
Table 11: Business and Operational
Support Costs.
Remuneration arrangements are
consistent with the mining industry in New South Wales and in
accordance with the relevant award(s) and National Employment
Standards.
The midpoint salaries selected for a
range of designations quoted in the Hays 2023/24 Salary Guide were
the reference for the basic salaries to establish a Total Annual
Cost of Employment for each role identified for Taronga.
Implementation
TMPL's project implementation
strategy is built around the core principles embodied in the
company's Mission, Values, and Vision.
TMPL's implementation model for
Taronga is based on an Integrated Project Plan (IPP), which
encompasses the Project Execution Plan (PEP), and the Operations
Readiness Plan (ORP).
The focus of the PEP is the delivery
of the project's physical components and managing its construction,
including:
·
Scoping, engineering, design, and construction of
facilities
·
Specification, procurement, delivery, and
commissioning of equipment and facilities required for mining and
processing operations.
The ORP is the program of work
required to ensure that TMPL, as owner and operator of the project,
is equipped to take delivery of the asset at handover and operate
it in a way that is consistent with its business objectives and
risk appetite.
The delivery of the project's
physical components includes:
·
The development and operation of open pit mines
and their associated access and haul roads and waste rock
emplacements (WREs).
·
Construction and handover of a tin processing
plant and its associated infrastructure and facilities.
·
The design, engineering, construction, and
handover of the co-disposal area (CDA), and small tailings storage
facility (TSF).
·
Construction and handover of infrastructure and
non-processing facilities, including those onsite and
off-site.
·
The design and engineering for water and
sedimentation management arrangements.
·
The identification of the owner's direct and
indirect costs.
Project execution will be a joint
effort between TMPL, and an EPCM contractor for the processing
plant and packages for the project's infrastructure and
non-processing facilities. This execution (construction)
strategy for Taronga is summarised below:
1. Processing plant and
Infrastructure and Non-Processing Facilities. All this scope
will be constructed under an EPCM model with the EPCM contractor
reporting to the site general manager. The EPCM contractor
will engage/provide the needed specialists with the experience to
oversee the progress of this work competently and confidently to
assess the contractor's adherence to their scope and agreed
standards for design and construction, and the certification on
progress claims for payment. The cost for these services is
provided for in the EPCM quote.
2. Mining Mobile
equipment and selected infrastructure will be managed by owner's
team, or self-performed. The scope includes:
a. the execution of the
bulk of earthworks across the project using this mining equipment.
This work includes access and haul road construction, clearing,
grubbing, stockpiling of topsoil, construction of earthwork/pads
for all facilities on-site establishment of water storages,
etc.
b. pre-production
purchasing and commissioning of any relevant mining equipment will
be managed by the owner's team.
TMPL's General Manager Construction
will manage and coordinate all activities within the project scope
with support from the EPCM Contractor in accordance with the
project procedures. The EPCM Contractor will provide, as required
in conjunction with TMPL:
·
Engineering management services
·
Procurement management services
·
Construction management services
·
The commissioning services performed for the
processing plant and infrastructure and non-processing facilities,
in conjunction with TMPL who will appoint a competent and qualified
Commissioning Manager to manage all commissioning
activities.
The Project is approximately 50 km
northwest of Glen Innes, a population and services centre in the
Northern Tableland / New England region of New South Wales (NSW).
Glen Innes is serviced by two classified NSW State Roads, namely
the New England and Gwydir Highways that provide interregional road
transport linkages.
The Port of Brisbane is the
preferred entry point for the Project. Road transport from this
port to the Mine Site is expected to take approximately 5 hours for
a heavy vehicle travelling via the New England Highway which
connects with the Queensland State Road network and NHVR approved
GML, CML, and HML routes to the Port of Brisbane.
The operating strategy developed and
recommended for TMPL was determined from a workshop which assessed
several alternatives. A hybrid model was selected by this
process, where most of the functional areas and their personnel are
based on site. Depending on the nature of the role, personnel
are either housed in Glen Innes or the surrounding area or working
on a long distance commute (LDC) roster basis. However, where
required, the senior roles needed to support the establishment of
business systems and processes are engaged on an off-site
basis. This engagement may be either on fixed terms or by
contract with specialist third parties.
The LDC arrangements will be a mix,
of DIDO, BIBO, or FIFO, which depends on the nature of the role.
Personnel associated with LDC arrangements would be accommodated in
either a shared house or camp, depending on their role.
Work rosters for proposed site-based
roles and their proposed distribution between residential and LDC
arrangements are shown in Table 12.
Operating Cost Centre
|
Management and Technical
Roles
|
Support Roles
|
Operation / Maintenance - no shift
work
|
Operation / Maintenance - shift
work
|
Residential
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
5:2 (10 hr)
|
5:2 (8 hr)
|
7/7
|
7/7
|
Processing
|
5:2 (10 hr)
|
5:2 (8 hr)
|
7/7
|
7/7
|
G&A
|
5:2 (10 hr)
|
5:2 (8 hr)
|
5:2 (10 hr)
|
N/A
|
LDC
|
|
|
|
|
Mining
|
8/6
|
8/6
|
7/7
|
7/7
|
Processing
|
8/6
|
8/6
|
7/7
|
7/7
|
G&A
|
8/6
|
8/6
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Residential: staff or contractors
living within Glen Innes Severn Council area
LDC: staff e.g. FIFO / BIBO / DIDO,
requiring accommodation provided by TMPL in Glen Innes
Shifts 12 hours unless stated
otherwise
|
Table 12: Proposed Work Rosters for
Taronga Tin Project
For all roles engaged at Taronga, a
maximum 14-hour workday regime; 12-hour shifts, and 1-hour travel
on either side is applied. This implies all residentially engaged
personnel are within 1 hour's travel of the site and those who are
based further away are on LDC arrangements. These LDCs are anchored
to an accommodation camp provided by TMPL in the Glen Innes
area.
Operational readiness, including its
organisational component, is a term used to describe the work
required to ensure the owner or operator for a project or asset
under construction is equipped to take delivery of the asset at
handover from the construction phase. Implicit in this definition
is that, as the operator, they can accept responsibility for the
asset and operate it in a way that is consistent with their
business needs and chosen risk appetite.
Operational readiness provides the
TMPL operational departments with effective preparation to be ready
to safely operate the Taronga Tin operation as a business at the
handover of the Taronga Tin Project by the project's construction
team. Operational readiness touches every department.
However, the scope and scale of this work will vary across
departments. The focus for operational readiness work is on
the non-physical aspects of the Project, which are the
responsibility of the incoming operations team. This entails a
significant technical workload before the start of operations,
particularly for "Greenfields" where many systems and processes are
being built from scratch.
The General Manager Operations is
responsible for managing the compilation of the mine's ORP and the
coordination between operations managers to ensure the effective
delivery of ORP outcomes and objectives. Once the General Manager
Operations focus moves beyond the initial objective of the
recruitment of the operations leadership team, this
team:
·
Drives the evolution of the operational aspect of
the business management framework and supports recruitment of
leaders with their teams; and
·
Has responsibility for the establishment of the
business systems, management plans, and operating procedures they
require to conduct operations at Taronga.
The process for the development and
implementation of the ORP requires a staged approach that involves
a gradual requirement for personnel. This occurs against the
background of the construction and delivery of the project's
physical assets and the scheduled start of wet commissioning. The
foundation to this work is the capacity of TMPL to recruit a
leadership team for the operation:
·
With the experience and capacity to contribute to
building out the business management systems, their management
plans and procedures needed for the operations phase,
·
In a timeframe that allows enough of this work to
be completed to allow TMPL to commence operations in a way that is
consistent with its risk appetite.
Owner's costs are a component of the
project capital costs and are shown in Table 13.
Description
|
Cost (A$)
|
Project Management (TMPL
Team)
|
2,322,560
|
Detailed Design
|
1,390,000
|
Operating and Establishment of TMPL
Operations Team
|
8,599,141
|
First Fill and Critical
Spares
|
1,784,956
|
Permitting & Statutory
Approvals
|
998,065
|
EPCM Engineering
|
7,887,900
|
EPCM
|
4,221,800
|
EPCM Site Office Expenses
|
1,451,340
|
Total
|
28,655,761
|
Table 13: Taronga Tin Project
Owner's and EPCM Costs
The forward work plan for the areas
of this DFS covered under Implementation relates primarily
to:
·
Further work directed at reducing project
uncertainties and risk
·
Opportunities to improve or enhance the project's
value.
The actions identified for
consideration as part of the project's forward work program
include:
1. Early commencement of
detailed engineering so that purchasing of major equipment can
occur as soon as funding is available. The long lead-time items for
the project are time frames beyond 12 months:
a. Behind the Meter
Power Supply - 10MW Solar Farm with Gas Engines.
b. For the processing
plant, equipment for:
i. Crushing Plant
ii. Product Bagging
iii.
CD Tanks
2. A risk identified for
the project construction phase is the potential for competition for
access to the available accommodation for construction workers
required in the area surrounding the project. To better understand
and manage this risk, further study is required of the available
accommodation and the options available to TMPL and its contractors
to secure appropriate accommodation during the construction
period.
3. To equip the Taronga
Tin operation with the best possible chance of achieving its
projected ramp-up performance, timely and effective preparation and
completion of operational readiness works are expected to be
important. An important aspect of this task is TMPL's ability to
attract suitably experienced staff who are capable of contributing
to or supporting the establishment of these systems. To
support TMPL, early engagement with a recruitment specialist to
survey the employment market for key roles is required along with
development of a plan to attract staff to these
positions.
Legals, Permits and Approvals
UK based and London Stock Exchange
(Standard Board) listed First Tin Plc (First Tin) owns the Taronga
Tin Project through its 100% owned Australian unlisted public
company subsidiary First Tin Australia Pty Ltd which holds 100% of
Australian unlisted company Taronga Mines Pty Ltd (TMPL), in whose
name the project is held. The mineral rights for the project are
held by TMPL.
Australia is a safe and reliable
trading and investment partner and has solidified its position as
the world's 12th largest economy. Australia is a
representative democracy where voters elect candidates to carry out
the business of government on their behalf.
The Australian Constitution of 1901
established a federal system of government, based on the British
(Westminster) tradition of government. Powers are distributed
between a national government (the Commonwealth) and the six states
(New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria
and Western Australia). The Australian Capital Territory and the
Northern Territory have self-government arrangements.
A range of Commonwealth and State
legislation and policies will apply to the Project. These various
legislative instruments relate to Project approval (development
consent), the management of environmental impacts, access to
natural resources and rehabilitation.
TMPL's licence to operate the
Project is maintained by its establishment and compliance with
process and management plans required by but not limited to the
relevant Federal and NSW legislation and regulations.
Prior to determination of the
Development Approval by NSW authorities, the consent authority must
consider and assess the Project against a range of NSW State
Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP). Most of these SEPPs arose
from a simplification program that commenced in 2021 to consolidate
45 SEPPs into 11. A summary of the relevant SEPPs is provided
here.
The Project is situated within the
Glen Innes Severn Council Local Government Area (GISC LGA). The
consent authority for any development within the GISC LGA must
consider the local planning provisions that are provided in the
Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Glen Innes Severn
LEP). A summary of the relevant provisions is provided
below.
All Mining Lease(s) issued under the
Mining Act contain standard conditions that require the
establishment of clear, achievable, measurable and enforceable
targets for rehabilitation and reporting. These conditions require,
where practicable, the adoption of progressive rehabilitation
throughout the Mine-life.
As the Project requires an
Environmental Protection Licence, it would be considered a "large
mine" under the Mining Regulation 2016. Therefore, the standard ML
conditions will require that, prior to the commencement of mining
operations, TMPL prepare and/or implement the following in the
approved format:
·
A rehabilitation risk assessment that identifies
and evaluates the potential risks to achieving the final land
use.
·
Appropriate measures to eliminate, minimise or
mitigate identified rehabilitation risks.
·
A publicly available Rehabilitation Management
Plan that documents rehabilitation risks and identifies the
approach to meet rehabilitation objectives.
·
The "rehabilitation outcome documents" that must
be submitted for approval by the Secretary of the Department of
Regional NSW are covered in this chapter.
An environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) must present and assess all stages of Project development,
including the site establishment and construction stage. Provided
development consent is granted, the Project would therefore not
require any separate approvals prior to construction although
certain Environmental Management Plans would likely be
required.
The Work Health and Safety (Mines
and Petroleum Sites) Act 2013 and Work Health and Safety (Mines and
Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2022 applies to all mines and petroleum
sites in NSW. These laws provide provisions for work health and
safety issues unique to mines and petroleum sites.
TMPL's licence to operate the
Project is maintained by its establishment and compliance with
process and management plans required by but not limited to the
legislation and regulation identified by the feasibility
study.
TMPL has established a register of
approval and permits for the project as a working document to
record and track the status of the various approvals and permits
required for the establishment and operation of the
Project.
TMPL currently hold the mineral
rights listed in Table 14.
Tenement
|
Grant/Application
Date
|
Expiry Date
|
Area
|
Security
|
Annual Rental
Fee
|
Annual Administrative
Levy
|
EL7800
|
4/7/2011
|
04/07/2025
|
36 Units
|
$10,000
|
$2,160
|
$100
|
EL7801
|
4/7/2011
|
4/7/2024
|
4 Units
|
$10,000
|
$240
|
$100
|
EL8335
|
5/1/2015
|
5/1/2027
|
56 Units
|
$10,000
|
$3,360
|
$100
|
EL8407
|
4/11/2015
|
4/11/2028
|
17 Units
|
$10,000
|
$1,020
|
$100
|
EL9200
|
21/06/2021
|
21/06/2027
|
74 Units
|
$10,000
|
$4,400
|
$100
|
ML1774
|
21/9/2018
|
21/12/2029
|
76.5 ha
|
$26,500
|
$497.25
|
$265
|
MLA624
|
19/12/2023
|
|
713.3 ha
|
|
|
|
Table 14: Mineral Rights held by
TMPL
MLA 624 is an application covering
the entirety of ML1774 and part of EL8407. This covers all of
the Taronga tin mineralisation and proposed infrastructure apart
from some external access road, pipeline and power transmission
line corridors.
The licences are shown on Figure
18.
Figure
18: TMPL Licences
As noted above, a range of
Commonwealth and State legislation and policies will apply to the
Project. These various legislative instruments relate to Project
approval (development consent), the management of environmental
impacts, access to natural resources and rehabilitation. To
undertake a comprehensive assessment of the Project, it is
necessary to place appropriate emphasis on those issues associated
with the Project that are likely to be of greatest
significance. To ensure this has occurred, a review of
relevant legislation has been undertaken to identify relevant
Project-related matters and potential impacts.
The following Commonwealth
Legislation will apply:
·
Native Title Act
1993 (NT Act): No claims currently
exist over the proposed mine area.
·
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC
Act): The EPBC Act covers 'matters
of national environmental significance' (MNES). Potentially
relevant MNES to the Project include:
·
listed threatened species and ecological
communities;
·
listed migratory species protected under
international agreements; and
·
National heritage places.
Under the EPBC Act, if a project has
the potential to have a significant impact on MNES, it is required
to be referred to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change,
Energy, the Environment and Water for assessment as to whether it
represents a 'controlled action', thus requiring approval from the
Federal Minister for the Environment. Ecological surveys
completed to date indicate the presence of six threatened species
(Velvet Wattle, Brown Treecreeper, Diamond Firetail, Hooded Robin,
Koala and the Border Thick-tailed Gecko) listed under the EPBC Act
that may potentially be impacted by the Project. Therefore, the
Project may require approval under the EPBC Act and a referral will
be made to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy,
the Environment and Water to establish whether it represents a
controlled action. No red flags have
been identified to date.
The following State Legislation will
apply:
·
Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act):
The EP&A Act provides the framework for the
assessment and determination of development applications in NSW and
is administered by the (NSW) Department of Planning Housing and
Infrastructure (DPHI). The EP&A Act aims to protect and
conserve the environment through ecologically sustainable
development. This is achieved through managing development to
conserve resources, including agricultural land, natural areas,
forests, minerals, water, and towns with the purpose of promoting
social and economic welfare of the community and an enhanced
environment. The Project is considered State Significant
Development (SSD) as the estimated $176M capital investment value
exceeds the $30M threshold identified in Schedule 1, Clause 5(1c)
of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021
(Planning Systems SEPP).
The EP&A Act sets out the
process for the assessment of SSD applications with an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being a mandatory requirement.
The Project's EIS must also comply with the requirements of
Division 5 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment
Regulation 2021 (EP&A Regulation) and address Project specific
Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) issued by
DPHI and relevant NSW Government Agencies. Section 4.41 of the
EP&A Act identifies that if development consent is granted for
a SSD, the following potentially relevant authorisations under
other legislation are not required.
·
A permit under section 201, 205 or 219 of the
Fisheries Management Act 1994.
·
An approval under Part 4, or an excavation permit
under section 139, of the Heritage Act 1977.
·
An Aboriginal heritage impact permit under section
90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
·
A bush fire safety authority under section 100B of
the Rural Fires Act 1997.
·
A water use approval under section 89, a water
management work approval under section 90 or an activity approval
(other than an aquifer interference approval) under section 91 of
the Water Management Act 2000.
In addition, Section 4.42 of the
EP&A Act stipulates that, despite being required, the following
authorisations cannot be refused and must be issued (with or
without conditions as determined by the relevant authority) for
approved SSD:
·
a mining lease under the Mining Act
1992;
·
an environment protection licence issued under
Chapter 3 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997;
and
·
a consent under section 138 of the Roads Act 1993
(Roads Act).
The Project will require development
consent and approval under Part 4, Division 4.7 of the EP&A
Act. The consent authority for the Project will be the
Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. In practice, it is
understood that the Minister delegates their authority to determine
such applications to a senior officer of DPHI. Alternatively,
under Section 2.7 of the Planning Systems SEPP, the Independent
Planning Commission would be the consent authority should one or
more of the following criteria be met.
·
Glen Innes Severn Council provides a submission
objecting to the Project.
·
There are more than 50 submissions objecting to
the Project.
·
TMPL has made a reportable political
donation.
·
Mining Act 1992
(Mining Act): In NSW, the ownership
of most mineral resources is vested in the State and managed under
the Mining Act 1992 (Mining Act) which provides the legislative
framework for mineral exploration and any subsequent development,
operation, rehabilitation and closure of mines. The Mining Act is
administered by an agency of the Department of Regional NSW, namely
the Division of Mining, Exploration and Geoscience (MEG).
Under Part 3 and Part 5 (respectively) of the Mining Act, MEG
issues Exploration Licences (EL) and/or Mining Leases (ML) that
provide the holder with lawful access to the State's mineral
resources. These licences and leases also include a range of
enforceable conditions that are administered by the NSW Resource
Regulator, and which relate to the environmental performance,
reporting and rehabilitation of the respective tenure. Section 282
of the Mining Act also requires the holder of an ML to pay royalty
to the State for any publicly owned minerals recovered by the
leaseholder. The royalty rate is specified in Schedule 6 of the
Mining Regulation 2016 and is currently 4%. Under Section 4.42 of
the EP&A Act, MLA 642 cannot be refused if the Project is
granted development consent.
·
Protection of the
Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act):
The POEO Act provides the environmental protection
framework for regulation and reduction of pollution and waste in
NSW as well as for monitoring of environmental quality. The POEO
Act is administered by the NSW Environment Protection Authority
(EPA), the primary environmental regulator in NSW. The EPA issues
environmental protection licences (EPLs) under Chapter 3 of the
POEO Act for activities that are scheduled under the POEO Act. The
POEO Act also requires immediate reporting of pollution incidents,
which cause or threaten to cause material harm to the
environment.
As the Project would disturb more
than 4 hectares of land for the purpose of mining for minerals, it
would require an EPL. Under Section 4.42 of the EP&A Act, this
EPL cannot be refused if development consent is granted.
·
Biodiversity
Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act): The BC Act's purpose is to maintain a healthy,
productive and resilient environment for the greatest well-being of
the community, now and into the future, consistent with the
principles of ecologically sustainable development. The BC Act is
administered by the Biodiversity, Conservation and Science Group
within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
and Water (DCCEEW). As the Project is SSD, it is required to
consider biodiversity impacts in accordance with the Biodiversity
Offset Scheme of the BC Act. Under this scheme, the Project's
development application must identify how biodiversity impacts are
either avoided or minimised. However, where biodiversity impacts
are unavoidable, the BC Act allows for their "offset" via the
purchase and/or retirement of biodiversity credits or payment into
the Biodiversity Conservation Fund.
The BC Act also contains provisions
for landholders to establish Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements on
their land to generate biodiversity offset credits. These credits
may then be used to retire the landholders' credit obligations
and/or sell the credits to other developers.
TMPL has commissioned a Biodiversity
Development Assessment Report (BDAR) to identify the Project's
potential impacts on biodiversity and its biodiversity credit
obligations. These obligations will be established via detailed
field surveys undertaken in accordance with the approved
Biodiversity Assessment Method and documented in the BDAR that,
under the BC Act, must be submitted with the EIS. TMPL is
investigating the potential establishment of a Biodiversity
Stewardship Agreement whereby sections of Company-owned land,
beyond MLA 642, are set aside to generate biodiversity offset
credits that would be used to meet the Project's credit
obligations, either wholly or in part. Following the grant of
development consent, the Biodiversity Offset Strategy must be
finalised and offset credits secured prior to the clearing of
native vegetation.
·
Water Management
Act 2000 (WM Act): The WM Act
requires that all extraction of surface water or groundwater must
be accounted for under the rules of any relevant water sharing
plans. The following plans apply to the Project.
·
Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Border Rivers
Unregulated River Water Sources.
·
Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Murray Darling
Basin Fractured Rock Groundwater Sources.
Water Sharing Plans specify the
rules and limitations on water use in the region that is the
subject of the plan and provide for equitable distribution of water
in accordance with the limits of the setting. The use (or 'take')
of water under a Water Sharing Plan must be approved and the volume
(or 'share) of that use limited through a water access licence.
TMPL holds water access licence (WAL 44962) entitling it to 636
unit shares in the New South Wales Murray Darling Fractured Rock
Groundwater Sources. The volumetric entitlement of WAL 44962 would
be utilised to meet Project-related water demands via a production
borefield that would be located south or north of MLA 642. This
borefield is currently under investigation via a program of test
bore drilling, installation and testing.
It is noted that water capture,
storage and use may also be exempt from WM Act licencing and
approvals under Section 53 (harvestable rights) or where water
management infrastructure that is considered "excluded works" under
the Water Management (General) Regulation 2018 with TMPL intending
to:
·
exercise its harvestable rights in relation to the
construction of some dams for the collection and use of surface
runoff.
·
construct and operate "excluded works" as part of
its mine water management system.
The Aquifer Interference Policy
(AIP) establishes the water licensing and assessment processes for
aquifer interference activities under the WM Act which defines an
aquifer interference activity as that which involves
the:
·
penetration of an aquifer;
·
interference with water in an aquifer;
·
obstruction of the flow of water in an
aquifer;
·
taking of water from an aquifer in the course of
carrying out mining or any other activity prescribed by the
regulations; or
·
disposal of water taken from an aquifer in the
course of carrying out mining or any other activity prescribed by
the regulations.
The AIP defines an agreed set of
'minimal impact' considerations, such as water table levels, water
pressure and water quality in particular aquifer categories. These
minimal impact considerations must be assessed against the
potential for harm to occur to an aquifer and its dependent
ecosystems, culturally significant sites, connected surface water
sources and existing water users. The Project may involve
aquifer interference activities through the development of open cut
pits and will be assessed against the AIP.
Section 4.41 of the EP&A Act
specifies that approvals under Sections 89, 90 and 91 (controlled
activity) of the WM Act are not required for SSD and, as such,
these approvals will not be sought in relation to the
Project. However, the Project would require a WM Act Section
91 (aquifer interference) approval when the relevant provisions of
the WM Act commence.
·
Roads Act 1993
(Roads Act): The Roads Act applies
to all public roads in New South Wales, and depending upon the road
classification, is administered by either Transport for NSW (TfNSW)
or the Local Government which, in this instance is Glen Innes
Severn Council (GISC). Under Section 138 of the Roads Act,
all works or structures that disturb the surface of a public road
or connect a road to a classified road requires consent from the
relevant roads authority. The Project will require various
intersection works, road upgrades and improvements to Local and
Regional Roads, with GISC being the issuing authority for the
required Roads Act consents. Under Section 4.42 of the
EP&A Act, Roads Acts consents cannot be refused if the works
are necessary for carrying out an approved project.
·
Explosives Act
2003 (Explosives Act): The
Explosives Act requires a person to hold a licence to handle,
transport, store or use explosives and explosive precursors.
A Dangerous Goods Licence will also be required for the storage of
explosives under the Explosives Act and the bulk storage of Class 3
Combustible Liquid (diesel). TMPL will comply with all
requirements of the Explosives Act.
·
Other
Legislation: The following New South
Wales legislation (presented alphabetically) is outlined given its
potential to apply to the Project at some stage(s) throughout its
life.
·
Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983;
·
Biosecurity Act 2015;
·
Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;
·
Crown Lands Act 1989;
·
Dam Safety Act 1978;
·
Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act
2008;
·
Fisheries Management Act 1994;
·
Heritage Act 1977;
·
Local Land Services Act 2013;
·
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
·
Rural Fires Act 1997;
·
Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act
2001.
In addition to the legislation,
prior to determination, the consent authority must consider and
assess the Project against a range of NSW State Environmental
Planning Policies (SEPP). Most of these SEPPs arose from a
simplification program that commenced in 2021 to consolidate 45
SEPPs into 11. A summary of the relevant SEPPs is provided
below:
·
State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning
Systems) 2021
·
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resources and
Energy) 2021
·
State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience
and Hazards) 2021
·
State Environmental Planning Policy (Biodiversity
and Conservation) 2021
TMPL's current Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIS) is considering all these aspects and to date, no
red flags have been found.
The Project is situated within the
Glen Innes Severn Council Local Government Area (GISC LGA). The
consent authority for any development within the GISC LGA must
consider the local planning provisions that are provided in the
Glen Innes Severn Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Glen Innes Severn
LEP). A summary of the relevant provisions is provided
below:
·
Clause 2.3(2)
Zoning: The Glen Innes Severn
LEP identifies the subject lands of Project's Application Area as
being zoned RU1 (Primary Production). The Glen Innes Severn LEP
identifies that open cut mining is permissible with consent within
Zone RU1.
·
Clause 7.3
Essential Services: The
consent authority must be satisfied that the Project has adequate
arrangements in place for the:
·
supply of water and electricity;
·
disposal and management of sewage;
·
stormwater drainage; and
·
road access.
The Project, through detailed
consideration as part of this Feasibility Study, has identified a
range of measures to address the matters identified above.
The EIS will document all measures relating to the supply of
essential services for the Project and provide an assessment of any
impacts that may arise from their implementation.
·
Clause 7.3
Riparian Land and Watercourses: This
clause applies to "Riparian Land" identified on GISC LEP mapping
where the consent authority must consider:
·
water quality and watercourse flows;
·
aquatic and riparian species, habitats and
watercourse ecosystems;
·
watercourse stability (bed and banks);
·
the free passage of fish and other aquatic
organisms;
·
the future rehabilitation of the watercourse and
riparian areas;
·
whether the development would increase water
extraction from the watercourse; and
·
measures to avoid, minimise or mitigate impacts of
the development.
Two watercourses (Vegetable Creek
and an unnamed tributary) along the alignment of Grampians Road are
identified as being "Riparian Land". As the Project would require
upgrades to Grampians Road, including improved crossings of these
waterways, an assessment of the impacts of these upgrades will be
provided in the EIS.
One watercourse (Little Plant Creek)
within the Mine Site is identified as being "Riparian Land". Whilst
the Project would avoid any direct impact on this watercourse, an
assessment of water quality and flow will be provided in the
EIS.
An Environmental Impact Assessment
is currently in progress addressing all aspects of legal,
permitting and approvals and is due for completion in Q3,
2024.
Rehabilitation and Mine Closure
All Mining Lease(s) issued under the
Mining Act contain standard conditions that require the
establishment of clear, achievable, measurable and enforceable
targets for rehabilitation and reporting. These conditions require,
where practicable, the adoption of progressive rehabilitation
throughout the Mine-life.
As the Project would require an
Environmental Protection Licence, it would be considered a "large
mine" under the Mining Regulation 2016. Therefore, the standard ML
conditions will require that, prior to the commencement of mining
operations, TMPL prepare and/or implement the following in the
approved format:
·
A rehabilitation risk assessment that identifies
and evaluates the potential risks to achieving the final land
use.
·
Appropriate measures to eliminate, minimise or
mitigate identified rehabilitation risks.
·
A publicly available Rehabilitation Management
Plan that documents rehabilitation risks and identifies the
approach to meet rehabilitation objectives.
·
The following "rehabilitation outcome documents"
that must be submitted for approval by the Secretary of the
Department of Regional NSW:
·
A rehabilitation objectives statement that
describes the rehabilitation outcomes required to achieve the final
land use.
·
Rehabilitation completion criteria that establish
"benchmark values" that demonstrate rehabilitation has been
achieved.
·
Final landform and rehabilitation plans that
spatially depict the topography and final land use areas of the
final landform.
Throughout the period of ML tenure,
TMPL would also be required to prepare and submit, in the approved
form, the following to the Resources Regulator on an annual
basis:
·
A Rehabilitation Report that documents TMPL's
approvals, surface disturbance, stakeholder consultation,
rehabilitation planning, any areas that have achieved the final
land use, rehabilitation activities (including management,
maintenance) over the reporting period and an analysis of progress
against the previous schedule.
·
A Forward Program that identifies the 3-year
schedule of mining activities and the spatial progression of any
rehabilitation activities to demonstrate that rehabilitation is
occurring as soon as reasonably practicable.
Following the cessation of mining
operations, any buildings and infrastructure not required for the
future land use would be decommissioned, dismantled and removed
from the Mine Site. During this period, any areas of hydrocarbon or
chemical contamination would also be identified and remediated.
These activities would then be followed, where required, by
earthworks and reshaping to ensure the final landform slopes are
stable and free draining.
The Project would also create
landforms that would be retained in the final landform, namely the
open cut pits, waste rock emplacements, co-disposal area and
tailing storage facility. Apart from the open cut pits and tailings
storage facility, these landforms would generally be developed
during operations to meet slope design criteria to ensure they are
free draining and geotechnically stable. Regarding the tailings
storage facility, following the cessation of tailings deposition,
the facility would be dewatered and placed tailings allowed to
consolidate. Once sufficiently consolidated, the tailings would
then be shaped to create a low slope surface that directs runoff to
the closure spillway. The waste rock emplacements, co-disposal area
and tailing storage facility would then be capped to ensure the
long-term geochemical stability of the underlying materials. Runoff
from these areas would continue to be collected in the water
management infrastructure developed for the Project.
Following reshaping and capping
activities, growth medium, including stockpiled topsoil and subsoil
would then be placed and the landform revegetated using
representative native species. At this stage, the final land use of
these areas would be "native ecosystem". All water management
infrastructure that is not required to meet the final land use, or
which exceeds the harvestable rights entitlements of the
landholding, would then be removed at this time.
The open cut pits would be retained
as "final voids" in the final landform. This would ensure future
access to underlying mineral resources should their extraction
become economically beneficial. Where required, terminal benches
would be shaped to ensure long term geotechnical stability. A
closure bund would also be placed around the open cut pit
perimeters and angled drillholes installed to permit
drainage.
Preliminary studies into renewable
power have shown potential exists to convert the Company's large
landholdings into a larger renewable power farm, including 13 by
4.5MW wind turbines and 25MW ac solar power generation to generate
up to 274,000MWh per year of renewable power. In
addition, as the area has moderate relief, potential exists to use
the final pit voids for a pumped hydro facility. These
options will be examined further as mining proceeds.
A key element of the EIS will be to
present the proposed final landform and land use of the Mine Site
following the cessation of operations and the subsequent
decommissioning and rehabilitation activities. Invariably,
rehabilitation outcomes are refined during consultation with NSW
Government agencies and the community, so residual risks are
reduced to acceptable levels which preserve intergenerational
equity. When the Project is approved, the agreed rehabilitation
outcomes would be conditioned in the development
consent.
A bond of A$9,420,242 has been
estimated as requirement prior to start of mining.
Capital Cost Estimate
Capital cost estimates have been
included under the respective headings and are consolidated below
in Table 15. Note that breakdown by area may be different to
that in the previous text.
Pre-production Capital
Area
|
Item
|
A$M
|
US$M
|
Mining
|
Pre-production Pit
Development
|
0.49
|
|
|
Pre-production WRE
Development
|
1.12
|
|
|
Haul Roads
|
2.87
|
|
|
Mining Equipment - Mobile
Fleet
|
0.15
|
|
|
Mine Infrastructure, Services &
Facilities
|
2.42
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
7.06
|
|
Processing
|
ROM & primary
crushing
|
3.71
|
|
|
Sec & tertiary
crushing
|
6.52
|
|
|
Screening
|
1.74
|
|
|
Ore storage & reclaim
|
2.13
|
|
|
VSI screening &
crushing
|
5.47
|
|
|
Jigging circuit
|
5.26
|
|
|
Jig concentrate circuit
|
0.88
|
|
|
Scavenger circuit
|
9.64
|
|
|
Batch dressing
|
1.46
|
|
|
Tin concentrate filter
|
1.58
|
|
|
Tin concentrate storage
|
0.29
|
|
|
Co -disposal material handling
system
|
0.13
|
|
|
Fine tailings thickener
|
1.06
|
|
|
Fine tailings filter
|
2.19
|
|
|
Tailings pipeline &
discharge
|
0.06
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
42.14
|
|
Infrastructure
|
On Site Plant
Infrastructure
|
13.36
|
|
|
Plant Facilities
|
3.41
|
|
|
Plant Mobile Equipment
|
0.60
|
|
|
CDA & TSF Area wide
|
0.37
|
|
|
Co-Disposal Area
|
0.86
|
|
|
Sulphide TSF
|
1.08
|
|
|
Off Site Infrastructure
|
0.72
|
|
|
Site Preparation
|
1.42
|
|
|
Onsite Infrastructure
|
6.34
|
|
|
Runoff Water &
Sediment
|
1.50
|
|
|
Fresh Water Supply Dam
|
1.48
|
|
|
Solar Farm
|
15.55
|
|
|
Gas Power Generation
|
12.39
|
|
|
Site Buildings
|
6.85
|
|
|
Construction Support
|
2.12
|
|
|
Subcontractor Overheads
|
14.39
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
82.43
|
|
Owner Costs
|
TMPL Project team
|
2.32
|
|
|
Detail Engineering
|
1.39
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
3.71
|
|
Ops Mining Management
|
TMPL Operations team
|
8.19
|
|
|
Operations Mgmt. Team
Expenses
|
0.20
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
8.40
|
|
First Fill & EPCM
|
First Fills & Critical
Spares
|
1.92
|
|
|
Permitting & Statutory
Approvals
|
1.00
|
|
|
EPCM Engineering
|
7.89
|
|
|
EPC management
|
4.22
|
|
|
EPCM Site Office Expenses
|
1.02
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
16.05
|
|
Contingency
|
Contingency
|
16.66
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
16.66
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
176.44
|
|
Sustaining Capital
Area
|
Item
|
A$M
|
US$M
|
Sustaining
|
Mining
|
3.10
|
|
|
Site Clearing
|
0.42
|
|
|
WRE & Tailings
|
1.56
|
|
|
Working Capital
|
0.60
|
|
|
Sub
Total
|
5.68
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
5.68
|
|
Table 15: Taronga Tin Project
Capital Cost Estimate.
Operating Cost Estimate
Operating cost estimates have been
included under the respective headings and are consolidated below
in Table 16 and Table 17.
Cost Centre
|
LOM Cost
(A$M)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Treated (A$/t)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Treated (US$/t)
|
Mining
|
267.1
|
6.73
|
4.44
|
Processing
|
209.8
|
5.28
|
3.48
|
G&A
|
80.1
|
2.02
|
1.33
|
Total Site Costs (C1)
|
557.0
|
14.03
|
9.26
|
Rehab Bond
|
9.4
|
0.24
|
0.16
|
Off Site Costs (Smelting, Transport
etc)
|
140.2
|
3.53
|
2.33
|
Royalties
|
22.7
|
0.57
|
0.38
|
Sustaining Capital
|
5.7
|
0.14
|
0.09
|
AISC Costs
|
734.9
|
18.51
|
12.22
|
Depreciation
|
162.4
|
4.09
|
2.70
|
Full Cost
|
897.3
|
22.60
|
14.92
|
Table 16: Taronga Tin Project
Operating Cost Estimate by Tonne of Ore Treated
Cost Centre
|
LOM Cost
(A$M)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Tin (A$/t)
|
LOM Cost
per Tonne Tin (US$/t)
|
Mining
|
267.1
|
8,724
|
5,758
|
Processing
|
209.8
|
6,853
|
4,523
|
G&A
|
80.1
|
2,615
|
1,726
|
Total Site Costs (C1)
|
557.0
|
18,192
|
12,007
|
Rehab Bond
|
9.4
|
308
|
203
|
Off Site Costs (Smelting, Transport
etc)
|
140.2
|
4,578
|
3,023
|
Royalties
|
22.7
|
741
|
489
|
Sustaining Capital
|
5.7
|
186
|
123
|
AISC Costs
|
734.9
|
24,005
|
15,843
|
Depreciation
|
162.4
|
5306
|
3502
|
Full Cost
|
897.3
|
29,311
|
19,345
|
Table 17: Taronga Tin Project
Operating Cost Estimate by Tonne of Tin Sold
These costs put Taronga firmly in
the lower half of production costs worldwide and close to the
lowest quartile. Figure 19, reproduced with permission from
the ITA, shows the projected worldwide tin mine full costs in 2027
based on 2022 data. Taronga's projected full cost is
US$19,345 per tonne (including depreciation), well below the
forecast US$33,800 tin price required to induce new
capacity.
Taronga Projected Full Cost
US$19,345/tonne
Figure
19: ITA Projected Tin Mine Production Costs 2027 (Based on 2022
Data, Used with Permission From ITA)
Marketing & Offtake
Tin is traded on the London Metals
Exchange (LME) and Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE). The
average trailing 3 month tin prices and exchange rates for
different time horizons as of 26th April 2024 is shown
in Table 18.
Time
|
US$/t tin
|
AUD:USD rate
|
A$/t tin
|
Spot (26/4/24)
|
33,097
|
0.6523
|
50,739
|
1 Year Av
|
26,350
|
0.6584
|
40,021
|
3 Year Av
|
29,720
|
0.6951
|
42,756
|
5 Year Av
|
25,180
|
0.6969
|
36,131
|
10 Year Av
|
22,311
|
0.7359
|
30,317
|
Table 18: Tin price and exchange
rates for different time periods
At the start of the DFS, the
assumptions used were a tin price of US$27,500 and exchange rate of
0.70 (A$39,286) based on the 3 year trailing averages at that
time. Through the course of the study these assumptions were
revisited.
Based on the 1 year (US$26,355) and
5 year (US$25,180) average USD tin prices and forecasts by the ITA
and others that US$25,000 will be the new floor price for tin, a
conservative tin price of US$26,000 (A$39,394) has been used for
the DFS. As of 26th April 2024, the spot price was
US$33,097 (A$50,739), which highlights the conservative assumption
used in the DFS.
Exchange rates are more difficult to
predict, and using past averages does not have any real
significance going forward due to changing economic
conditions. The value of the AUD is partly dependent on the
Chinese economy, as China is Australia's main trading partner, and
it is generally predicted that China's economy will slow down from
its normal high rate of advance going forward. Long range
forecasts are generally bearish for the AUD. Based on this,
the current rate of around 0.65 to 0.66 is considered reasonable
and it was decided that 0.66 be used for the current
study.
Payability terms assume offtake by
one of the main smelters in Southeast Asia (MSC or
Thaisarco). A Terms Sheet has been obtained with a validity
date of 31/12/2024 from Thaisarco that outlines the main terms for
treatment charges, deductions, penalties and specifications.
As these are confidential, details are not provided here, but total
payability is calculated at 88.4%.
The average Taronga concentrate
grades are shown in Table 19, along with the specifications for
acceptance by the smelter:
Element
|
Taronga Average Grade
|
Smelter Specifications
|
Sn
|
62.03%
|
>40%
|
As
|
1.19%
|
<2%
|
F
|
1.70%
|
N/A
|
Pb
|
0.06%
|
<1%
|
Bi
|
0.01%
|
<0.5%
|
Cu
|
0.06%
|
<0.5%
|
Sb
|
0.01%
|
<0.2%
|
Ni
|
0.00%
|
<0.05%
|
Co
|
0.00%
|
<0.05%
|
Zn
|
0.02%
|
<0.5%
|
Ag
|
13.85
|
N/A
|
S
|
0.38%
|
<5%
|
Fe
|
3.73%
|
<10%
|
Mn
|
0.00%
|
<0.2%
|
W
|
0.62%
|
<5%
|
ThO3
|
0.00%
|
<10Bq/g
|
U3O8
|
0.00%
|
<10Bq/g
|
SiO2
|
5.34%
|
N/A
|
Table 19: Taronga Tin Project
Average Product Specification
It can be seen that the Taronga
concentrate is well within specifications. Arsenic, although
currently within specification, can be further reduced to well
below 1% by cleaning up the final concentrate using sodium
hydrosulphide (NaSH) as an addition to the sulphide flotation
process.
Based on the above specifications,
the total payability of Taronga tin concentrate is 88.4% including
all treatment costs and penalties, transport to the smelter in
Thailand, insurance and other associated costs.
Business and Financial Assessment
The following key inputs were used
to populate the financial model:
·
TMPL, AMDAD, and Mincore for mine capital
development and infrastructure capital costs
·
AMDAD for mine schedule physicals and assumptions
for mining costs
·
Mincore for power consumption, percentage of
installed equipment for maintenance materials, reagents-consumables
consumption, and other processing inputs.
·
Market bids (sourced by Mincore, TMPL, etc.)
consumables prices as inputs for operating costs, sustaining
capital estimates, asset replacement as percentage of installed
equipment
·
ATC Williams for TSF and CDA quantities and
timing
·
Mincore for labour cost estimates
·
TMPL and Mincore for earthworks, materials, and
consumables rates
Key assumptions used are:
·
Tin
price
US$ 26,000/t
·
AUD:USD Exchange
Rate
0.66
·
Tin
Payability
88.4% (incl. transport, smelting, penalties etc)
·
Electricity
Price
A$0.125/kWh
·
Diesel
Price
A$1.35/l (after government rebate)
·
NSW State Royalty
Rate
4%
·
Income Tax
Rate
30%
·
Discount
Rate
8%
The design requirements were
prepared by each consultant for their respective area of study. In
consultation with the consultants, Mincore prepared quantity
estimates for those designs and applied unit rates from their
current market database to estimate the capital costs for each work
breakdown structure (WBS) element. For example, ATC Williams
designed the TSF and CDA and provided the estimate of earthworks
quantities required for their design, and Mincore provided the unit
rates of the earthworks to deliver the TSF and CDA capital cost
estimate. Both upfront capital costs and sustaining capital
costs were prepared in this way.
Upfront capital costs are defined as
those capital costs that are required to bring the project into
production that occurred before the first tin concentrate is
produced. Whereas, sustaining capital costs are the capital cost
items that occur post the commencement of production.
Capital and operating costs are
provided in previous sections of this report.
The production profile was provided
by AMDAD using the ore reserve estimates and scheduling from their
pit optimisations and subsequent detailed design.
The key outputs from the financial
model are presented in the Table 20.
Item
|
|
Unit
|
Amount
|
Production
|
Waste mined
|
kt
|
40,540
|
|
Mill feed
|
kt
|
39,710
|
|
Head grade
|
% Sn
|
0.13%
|
|
Contained tin
|
tonnes
|
51,528
|
|
Plant recovery
|
%
|
59%
|
|
Tin produced
|
tonnes
|
30,613
|
Operating costs
|
Mining costs - incl.
geology
|
AUD/t
|
6.73
|
|
Processing costs
|
AUD/t
|
5.28
|
|
Site G&A costs
|
AUD/t
|
2.02
|
|
C1 Site Costs
|
AUD/t
|
14.03
|
|
Bond Costs
|
AUD/t
|
0.24
|
|
Government royalty
|
AUD/t
|
0.57
|
|
Sustaining capital
|
AUD/t
|
0.14
|
|
Realisation costs
|
AUD/t
|
3.58
|
|
Total AISC operating cost
|
AUD/t
|
18.51
|
|
Depreciation
|
AUD/t
|
4.09
|
|
Full costs
|
AUD/t
|
22.60
|
Operating cash flow
|
Tin price assumption
|
AUD/tonne
|
39,394
|
|
Tin revenue
|
AUD million
|
1,206.0
|
|
Realisation costs
|
AUD million
|
140.2
|
|
Net revenue
|
AUD million
|
1,065.8
|
|
Site operating costs (incl.
royalties)
|
AUD million
|
589.02
|
|
Operating Margin
|
%
|
45%
|
|
EBITDA
|
AUD million
|
476.8
|
Capital costs
|
Upfront capital costs
|
AUD million
|
176.4
|
|
LOM Sustaining capital
|
AUD million
|
5.7
|
Cash Flows
|
Mine closure costs
|
AUD million
|
9.4
|
|
Pre-tax LOM cash flow
|
AUD million
|
295.7
|
|
Income taxes
|
AUD million
|
78.1
|
|
Post-tax LOM cash flow
|
AUD million
|
235.6
|
NPV metrics
|
Discount rate (%)
|
%
|
8%
|
|
Net present value before tax -
ungeared
|
AUD million
|
143.1
|
|
Net present value after tax -
ungeared
|
AUD million
|
98.3
|
|
IRR - before tax (%)
|
%
|
24.3
|
|
IRR - after tax (%)
|
%
|
20.4
|
|
Mine life
|
Years
|
9
|
|
Payback - after tax
(years)
|
years
|
2.97
|
|
Breakeven tin price (NPV =
0)
|
USD/tonne
|
20,510
|
Table 20: Taronga Tin Project
Financial Model Key Outputs
An after tax NPV waterfall chart is
shown as Figures 20 and 21.
Discounted and undiscounted after
tax cash flow diagrams are shown as Figures 22 and 23.
Concentrate and metal production are
shown as Figure 24.
Figure
20: Taronga Tin Project - Post Tax NPV Waterfall Chart
Figure
21: Taronga Tin Project - Post Tax NPV Waterfall Chart
(Simplified)
Figure
22: Taronga Tin Project - After Tax Undiscounted
Cashflow
Figure
23: Taronga Tin Project - After Tax Discounted Cashflow
Figure
24: Taronga Tin Project - Concentrate and Metal
Production
Sensitivity to tin price is shown as
Figure 25.
A$
Figure 25
- Taronga Tin Project - Sensitivity to Tin Price
At the current tin price of
US$33,097 (A$50,739) per tonne on 26th April, pre-tax
NPV8 and IRR are A$331 million and 42% respectively
while post tax NPV8 and IRR are A$231 million and 35%
respectively. At the conservative tin price of
US$26,000 (A$39,394) per tonne used as a base for the DFS, pre-tax
NPV8 and IRR are A$143 million and 24% respectively
(post-tax A$98 million and 20%). A higher price scenario
assuming a US$40,000 per tonne, implies a pre-tax NPV8
of A$494 million and a post-tax NPV8 of A$345
million.
Considering the recent movements in
the tin price and the ITA forecast that an inducement price of
US$33,800 per tonne required to encourage new capacity,
a tin price of US$30,000 per tonne is a useful
mid-price comparable for this project. At this tin price the pre-tax NPV8 is A$243 million
and IRR of 34% (post-tax A$169m and
28%).
These comparisons are summarised in
Table 21:
Scenario
|
DFS Base
Case
|
Mid-Case
|
Current
Spot
|
High
Case
|
Tin Price US$/t
|
26,000
|
30,000
|
33,097
|
40,000
|
Pre-TaxNPV8 AUD
m
|
143
|
243
|
331
|
494
|
Pre/Post Tax IRR %
|
24/20
|
34/28
|
42/34
|
55/45
|
Table 21: Pre-tax NPV8
Comparisons at alternative Tin Prices (other factors kept
constant)
NPV sensitivity to other key inputs
is shown as Figure 26.
Figure 26
- Taronga Tin Project - Sensitivity to Key Inputs
Upside Potential
The pit optimisations and subsequent
detailed designs are based on the initial recovery formula (average
54% recovery) that has since been proven to be far too
conservative.
As reported on 25th April
2024, ongoing mineral processing test work has shown a total
recovery of 60.2% for a low grade sample (0.10% head grade).
Crushing test work on a high grade (HG) sample (0.15% head grade)
provided a 91.2% recovery of tin in 44% of the mass, grading 0.30%
Sn. If the gravity concentration recoveries for the HG sample
can be shown to be similar to the 71.2% obtained for the low-grade
samples, then total recovery at a head grade of 0.15% should be
around 65-66%.
As these results arrived too late to
re-design the pits, waste rock emplacements, co-disposal areas and
tailings storage facility for the DFS, an updated recovery was only
used for the economic miodelling. Based on this new
information, it was not possible to totally re-run the economic
model. However, revised pit optimisations (not included in
the DFS) suggest that at currently achieved recoveries of ca. 59%,
the mine life and pre-tax NPV of the project is likely to increase
from that reported in the DFS.
At a later stage an add-on fine tin
circuit could be included to improve recoveries by
5-10%.
Recently announced soil sampling
results suggest the presence of additional tin
mineralisation. Success from any subsequent follow up
drilling could result in the identification of new Mineral
Resources which could significantly add to mine life and the
project economics. There are several areas that require
additional drilling to define potential additional Mineral
Resources including:
1. Current Inferred
Resources
2. Potential parallel
zones immediately NW of the current pits.
3. Extensions to the NE
and SW of the current pits (mineralisation not closed
off).
4. Between the two pits
where recent drilling has returned previously unknown
mineralisation.
5. Potential parallel
zones to the SE of the current pits.
1. Assumed
AUD:USD exchange rate is 0.66. Site cash costs include mining,
processing and G&A.
2. All-In
Sustaining Cost (AISC) is the site cash cost to produce a tonne of
contained tin plus the sustaining capital costs to maintain the
mine, processing plant and infrastructure, servicing the
environmental bond, the off-mine costs to sell a tonne of contained
tin, and NSW government royalties. AISC per tonne does not include
depreciation, depletion, and amortisation, reclamation, borrowing
costs and exploration expenses.
Appendix
If you would like to access the full
Ore Reserves Statement for the Taronga Tin Project, which includes
the full JORC tables, please click the link below:
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9778M_1-2024-5-2.pdf