ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for default Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.

AMC Amur Minerals Corporation

0.09
0.00 (0.00%)
28 Mar 2024 - Closed
Delayed by 15 minutes
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Amur Minerals Corporation LSE:AMC London Ordinary Share VGG042401007 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 0.09 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
Mineral Royalty Traders 0 -3.01M -0.0022 -0.41 1.25M

Amur Minerals Corporation Projected C1 Nickel Costs Below Industry Average (8027M)

02/05/2018 7:00am

UK Regulatory


Amur Minerals (LSE:AMC)
Historical Stock Chart


From Mar 2019 to Mar 2024

Click Here for more Amur Minerals Charts.

TIDMAMC

RNS Number : 8027M

Amur Minerals Corporation

02 May 2018

2 May 2018

AMUR MINERALS CORPORATION

(AIM: AMC)

Projected C1 Nickel Costs Below Nickel Industry Average

Amur Minerals Corporation ("AMC" or the "Company"), a nickel-copper sulphide mineral exploration and resource development company located in the Russian Far East, is pleased to update shareholders that its in-house C1 cost estimates (Net Direct Cash Cost) per pound of nickel at its planned Kun-Manie nickel copper sulphide project would place it among the existing 10 lowest cost nickel industry producers.

Based on the 16 April 2018 RNS, which reported Kun-Manie mining potential of 73 million ore tonnes (12 years and 2 months of production at 6.0 million ore tonnes per annum), the Life of Mine ("LOM") C1 cost per pound nickel is projected to range from USD 2.61 (USD 5,750 per tonne) (Owner Operated Low Grade Matte - "OO LGM") to USD 2.77 (USD 6,100 per tonne) (contract toll smelting - "TS").

Highlights:

-- C1 projected per pound nickel costs range from the OO LGM cost of USD 2.61 (USD 5,750 per tonne) to the TS projected C1 cost of USD 2.77 (USD 6,100 per tonne) at the Company's planned Kun-Manie operation.

-- The projected C1 costs indicate Kun-Manie could rank among the 10 lowest cost industry wide nickel producers as per CRU's most recent estimate (April 2017) of business costs at existing operations.

-- Based on the Brook Hunt C1 definition of costs (including all operating costs, all truck and rail freight (FOB Vladivostok) costs, smelting and refining fees, royalties and net profit tax), the C1 projected costs are lower than all CRU April 2017 reported hydrometallurgical, FeNi and NPI nickel operations. With regard to NiS operators, Kun-Manie ranks from 4(th) to 7(th) within the group of 16 reported nickel sulphide producers.

-- Mine site C1 costs (including truck freight of the concentrate to the nearest rail station) totals USD 1.76 per pound nickel (USD 3,900 per tonne). This component of the C1 cost is the same for both TS and OO LGM production scenarios. Additional C1 costs are USD 1.01 per nickel pound (USD 2,220 per tonne) for the TS option and USD 0.86 per nickel pound (USD 1,900 per tonne) for the OO LGM production opportunity. The additional cost components include smelting and operating considerations specific to each of the TS and OO LGM options. This includes smelter fees and losses, rail freight (FOB Vladivostok), refining, royalty and net profit tax costs bringing the total C1 cost for the TS option to USD 2.77 per nickel pound (USD 6,100) and USD 2.61 per pound (USD 5,750 per tonne) for the OO LGM opportunity.

-- Cost projections are based on the Company's February 2017 Mineral Resource Estimate ("MRE") Measured and Indicated inventory from which RPM Global, the independent mining consultancy, generated open pit and underground mine designs that identify 73 million ore production tonnes. This provides for a mine life of 12 years and 2 months.

-- These C1 costs do not take into account the increase in the MRE as a result of the inclusion of the 2017 drill results at the Ikenskoe / Sobolevsky ("IKEN") and Kubuk ("KUB") deposits as announced on 20 March 2018. Presently, open pit designs (to be followed by the potential to extract underground ores at a higher profit) within and between the neighbouring IKEN and KUB deposits indicates substantial potential to extend the mine life to a minimum of 15 years. The addition of these ores will change the C1 costs reported herein.

Robin Young, CEO of Amur Minerals, commented:

"We are pleased to provide projections of the C1 fully loaded direct operating costs for our two primary production options which include toll smelting or our building and operating of a Low Grade Matte facility to process our concentrate. Comparison of these newly defined costs indicates that Kun-Manie could be a low cost competitor within the nickel industry ranking in the lowest 10 producers by cost and, potentially , even as low as fourth. Ranging from $5,750 to $6,100 per nickel tonne, we are well below the CRU projected average production cost of $10,000 per tonne (as at April 2017).

"These newly defined C1 cost projections include all projected operating costs and operational considerations from the mine face to the sale of a final product. These costs also take into account mine dilution, metallurgical recoveries at the mine and smelters, truck and rail freight and more. We have also included the Russian Far East reduced tax and royalty incentives which further reduce our total production cost per nickel unit, whether a pound or a tonne.

"In addition, looking at how we rank among the greenfield and brownfield projects, we note that there are about 10 projects that contain more than our 1.2 million tonne nickel resource. Of these, only two have higher grades of ore than our average of 0.75% nickel. Interestingly, the remaining six have average grades below what we use as a cutoff grade which is 0.4% nickel. As such, we feel well positioned in the new emerging nickel demanding Electronic Vehicle market."

Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure

Certain information contained in this announcement would have been deemed inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 until the release of this announcement.

Enquiries:

 
 Company          Nomad and Broker        Public Relations 
  Amur Minerals    S.P. Angel Corporate    Yellow Jersey 
  Corp.            Finance LLP             PR 
 Robin Young      Ewan Leggat             Charles Goodwin 
  CEO              Soltan Tagiev           Harriet Jackson 
                                           Dominic Barretto 
                                          +44(0)7544 
 +7(4212)755615   +44(0)203 470 0470       275 882 
 

For additional information, visit the Company's website, www.amurminerals.com.

Click on, or paste the following link into your web browser, to view the associated important PDF document and audio file.

http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/C1-2018-APR-30.pdf

http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/C1-2018-APR-30.mp3

Notes to Editors

The information contained in this announcement has been reviewed and approved by the CEO of Amur, Mr. Robin Young. Mr. Young is a Geological Engineer (cum laude), a Professional Geologist licensed by the Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, and is a Qualified Professional Geologist, as defined by the Toronto and Vancouver Stock Exchanges. An employee of Amur for 13 years, previously Mr. Young was employed as an exploration and mine geologist, mining engineer, construction manager of a mine startup as well as independent consultant with Fluor Engineers, Fluor Australia and Western Services Engineering, Inc. during which time his responsibilities included the independent compilation of resources and reserves in accordance with JORC standards. In addition, he has been the lead engineer and project manager in the compilation of numerous studies and projects requiring the compilation of independent Bankable Studies utilised to finance small to large scale projects located worldwide. Mr. Young is responsible for the content of this announcement which includes information sourced from RPM Global, SGS Minerals, Gipronickel Institute and CRU International Limited.

Overview and Considerations Regarding C1 Determination

C1 (Direct Cash Costs) reported costs are a metric used by the mining industry as a reference point to denote the basic direct cash costs of running a planned or operational mine. This metric allows comparisons of planned projects and producing operations generating the same commodities. The AMC compiled C1 costs reported herein are based on the definition derived from Brook Hunt where C1 costs are direct costs and include the following:

   --     Mining, ore haulage and milling costs 
   --     Mine-site administration and general expenses 
   --     Concentrate freight, smelting and smelter general and administrative costs 
   --     Matte freight, refining and refinery general and administrative costs 
   --     Marketing costs (freight and selling) 
   --     Royalties and net profits tax 

Production Basis for Calculation

AMC's estimated C1 costs are based on the 16 April 2018 reported Mining Potential including mine production from four open pits and one underground Long Hole Open Stoping ("LHOS") production areas. The projected Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation ("EBITDA") is USD 2.7 billion.

The production summary by deposit (open pit) and mining method used in the compilation of the C1 cost projections is set out in the table below. The current Life of Mine ("LOM") production of 73 million ore tonnes is projected to be in the order of 12 years and 2 months (based on the February 2017 MRE).

Mining Production Profile

16 April 2018 (based on the February 2017 MRE)

 
  Deposit    Ore    Waste    Total    Stripping    Ni     Cu     Co      Pt       Pd 
              Mt      Mt     Tonnes     Ratio      (%)    (%)    (%)    (g/t)    (g/t) 
                               Mt        t:t 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
                       March 2018 MRE does not impact MKF or VOD 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  MKF OP     13.9    47       61         3.4      0.72   0.20   0.01    0.14     0.13 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
  MKF UG 
    LHOS     32.4     6       38         NA       0.71   0.19   0.01    0.13     0.14 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
  VOD OP     4.9      4        9         0.8      0.79   0.20   0.02    0.17     0.17 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
                      March 2018 MRE update will impact IKEN and 
                            KUB - Open Pit Analysis Underway 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  IKEN OP    15.2    77       93         5.1      0.60   0.15   0.01    0.23     0.19 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
  KUB OP     7.0     38       46         5.2      0.78   0.20   0.02    0.16     0.17 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
   Total 
  OP Plus 
     UG      73.4    172      245        4.0      0.70   0.19   0.01    0.16     0.12 
----------  -----  ------  --------  ----------  -----  -----  -----  -------  ------- 
 

Note: RPM Global ("RPM") are presently updating the open pit production potential for the IKEN and KUB deposits which could substantially alter the results presented above and is anticipated to result in a change in the current projected Life of Mine C1 costs with the addition of an additional three years of production.

Process Plant Recoveries and Concentrate Production Considerations

Nickel metallurgical recoveries at VOD, IKEN and KUB were based on SGS Minerals ("SGS") grade recovery results (30 August 2016) whilst the MKF nickel recovery was based on results from a half tonne bulk sample analysed by Gipronickel Institute ("GIPRO") (11 January 2017). The global metallurgical recovery for all production of nickel to concentrate averages 79.0%.

 
 Global Metallurgical        Recovery by 
  Recovery at the Plant         Deposit 
--------------------------  ------------- 
     Nickel         79.0%    MKF - 80.6% 
                                (GIPRO) 
----------------  --------  ------------- 
     Copper          83%     VOD - 74.6% 
                                 (SGS) 
----------------  --------  ------------- 
     Cobalt          61%     IKEN - 78.3% 
                                 (SGS) 
----------------  --------  ------------- 
    Platinum         60%     KUB - 68.6% 
                                 (SGS) 
----------------  --------  ------------- 
    Palladium        82% 
----------------  --------  ------------- 
 
 
 Concentrate Production 
  and Content 
     Tonnes Dry         4.4 
     Concentrate         Mt 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
 Contained Moisture     7% 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
     Concentrate        4.7 
      Wet Tonnes         Mt 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
         Ni            9.3%     404 
                                 kt 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
         Cu            2.6%     115 
                                 kt 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
         Co            0.14%   4,500 
                                 t 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
         Pt             1.6     7.0 
                        g/t      t 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
         Pd             2.1     7.2 
                        g/t      t 
--------------------  ------  ------ 
 

Mine Site Operating Costs for C1 Calculation

On 17 July 2017, the Company reported a qualified C1 cost (USD 1.78 per pound - USD 3,920 per tonne) for the "Mine Site" portion of the C1 cost. This "Mine Site" component includes all costs through concentrate delivery to the Ulak station located on the Baikal Amur ("BAM") rail line. These costs remain unchanged with regard to the downstream concentrate treatment options and are referred to as Mine Site costs. The unit costs used to calculate the Mine Site C1 total are summarised below.

 
 Cost Centre                   Units       Unit Cost 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
       Open Pit Mining          $/t ore      6.53 
       (Waste Included)            OC 
         LHOS Mining              $/ t        7.44 
                                 ore UG 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
      Ore Transport to 
        Process Plant           $/t ore      1.58 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
       Processing Cost          $/t ore      11.50 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
          Tailings              $/t ore      0.16 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
    Concentrate Transport 
           to Ulak              $/t ore      1.50 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
 General and Administrative     $/t ore      1.98 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
       Open Cut Total 
             Cost               $/t ore      23.25 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
      Underground Total 
             Cost               $/t ore      24.16 
----------------------------  ----------  ---------- 
 

Using the reported 16 April 2018 mining potential, the Mine Site C1 cost component for delivery of the concentrate to Ulak is estimated to be USD 1.76 per pound (USD 3,880 per tonne). This is a USD 0.02 per pound nickel (USD 44 per tonne) reduction from that reported on 17 July 2017.

Downstream C1 Costs - Saleable Product Generation

By definition, fully loaded C1 costs include the treatment cost of the concentrate resulting in a salable intermediate or final product, royalties, freight, customs and net profits tax. The Company calculated these Downstream C1 costs for each of two options as follows:

   --     Toll Smelting ("TS") -based on available smelter off take agreements 

-- Construction of an owner operated Low Grade Matte ("OO LGM") facility at the Ulak rail station.

Using available TS off-take schedules and Company derived first principle calculations for the OO LGM operation, the all-in Downstream C1 cost per pound of nickel were determined. The Downstream component included all concentrate treatment costs and losses, freight (FOB Vladivostok), royalties and net profit tax, the Downstream C1 cost ranges from USD 1.01 per pound (USD 2,230 per tonne) (OO LGM scenario) to USD 1.12 per pound (USD 2,470 per tonne) (TS scenario).

Total All-In C1 Cost Per Pound Nickel

The combined Mine Site and Downstream C1 costs per pound nickel are provided below by cost sector.

C1 Kun-Manie Costs Per Pound Nickel

 
 Life of Mine Projected 
  Cost (USD)                 TS     OO LGM 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
         Mining            $0.74    $0.74 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
  Processing + Tailings    $0.84    $0.84 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
     Freight to Rail 
         Station           $0.01    $0.01 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
           G&A             $0.17    $0.17 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
        Royalties          $0.23    $0.27 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
      Smelter Opex         $0.71    $0.44 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
     Net Profit Tax        $0.07    $0.15 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
    Total C1 Cost Per 
         Pound Ni          $2.77    $2.61 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
    Total C1 Cost Per 
         Tonne Ni          $6,100   $5,750 
------------------------  -------  ------- 
 
 

The following link provides charts depicting the LOM and annual distribution of C1 costs.

http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/C1-2018-APR-30.pdf

Comparison to Operating Mines

On a cost basis and using the April 2017 CRU Business Cost chart of operating mines, the projected C1 cost range of USD 2.61 to USD 2.77 per nickel pound (from USD 5,750 to USD 6,100 per tonne of nickel) indicates that Kun-Manie could be a highly competitive operation within the nickel industry. See the following link:

http://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/C1-2018-APR-30.pdf

Cautionary Statement Regarding Use of a C1 Cost

The Company notes selection of an optimal operational design should not be based solely on C1 cost projections as these are direct costs only and do not reflect the profitability potential of a mine and time value of money. To determine better indicative options, an enhanced Brook Hunt metric recommends the calculation of the M1 value (revenue less C1), an indicator of profit potential similar to but not the same as an Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation ("EBITDA") reported value. The EBITDA excludes royalties and taxes.

For Kun-Manie, each of the two options is designed to generate a saleable product and are characterised by substantially differing payable schedules for the recovered metal. Each option thereby provides a highly unique revenue stream. The following table presents a comparison of typical percent payable metal factors for the TS and OO LGM option.

Typical Industry Payable Schedule for Revenue Determination

 
            Parameters               Nickel      Copper       Cobalt       Platinum    Palladium 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
       Metal In Concentrate           890      253 m lbs     9.9 m lbs    225 k ozs    232 k ozs 
                                      m lbs     115,000 t     4,500 t        7.0 t        7.2 t 
                                     404,000 
                                        t 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
        Production Option           Payable     Payable       Payable      Payable      Payable 
                                     Nickel      Copper        Cobalt      Platinum     Palladium 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
                TS                    70%       0 to 50%        0%            0%           0% 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
                                      70 - 
               LGM                     80%      70 - 80%     70 - 80%      70 - 80%     70 - 80% 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
 Revenue (27 April 2018) Pricing      6.30     3.10 / lb    40.00 / lb     910 / oz     925 / oz 
                USD                   / lb      6,832 / t    88,200 / t    29.25 / g    29.75 / g 
                                     13,885 
                                       / t 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
                        Adjusted Payable Based Revenue Potential- Average 
                                  From Industry Payable Schedules 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                                     $3,926 
                TS                      M        $196 M        $0 M          $0 M         $0 M 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
                                     $4,207 
               LGM                      M        $589 M       $298 M        $153 M       $161 M 
---------------------------------  ---------  -----------  ------------  -----------  ----------- 
 

The above table is based on average industry payable schedules and is not specific to the Kun-Manie project as the Company has not entered into any contract regarding the delivery of a concentrate or LGM at this time. These are illustrative only and are intended to depict that the use of the C1 metric for decision making by the Company or an investor must include substantial and additional considerations.

March 2018 Mineral Resource Estimate

0.4% Nickel Cutoff Grade

 
    Resource        Ore     Ni     Cu     Co      Pt     Pd     Eq                      Contained Metal (t) 
  Classification     Mt      %      %      %      g/t    g/t    Ni 
                                                                (%) 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  --------------------------------------------------------- 
                                                                         Ni         Cu         Co       Pt     Pd       Eq 
                                                                      (1000's)   (1000's)   (1000's)    (t)    (t)       Ni 
                                                                                                                      (1000's) 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
                                         MKF - Updated February 2017 - No New Drilling 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Measured 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Indicated      57.5    0.77   0.22   0.015   0.15   0.16   1.06     445        124        8.9      8.8    9.3      606.5 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
       M+I         57.5    0.77   0.22   0.015   0.15   0.16   1.06     445        124        8.9      8.8    9.3      606.5 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Inferred        3.4    0.80   0.22   0.017   0.16   0.15   1.06      27         7         0.6      0.5    0.5      36.1 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    MKF TOTAL      60.9    0.78   0.22   0.015   0.15   0.16   1.06     472        131        9.5      9.3    9.8      643.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
                                     IKEN - Updated March 2018 - Open Pit and Underground 
                                                   Potential Review Necessary 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Measured       10.6    0.71   0.18   0.011   0.22   0.26   0.98      75         19        1.1      2.3    2.8      103.2 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Indicated      13.6    0.66   0.17   0.012   0.18   0.20   0.91      89         24        1.7      2.4    2.8      123.7 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
       M+I         24.2    0.68   0.18   0.012   0.19   0.23   0.94     164         43        2.8      4.7    5.6      226.9 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Inferred       27.8    0.80   0.23   0.017   0.19   0.19   1.10     222         63        4.6      5.2    5.3      306.5 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
   IKEN TOTAL      51.9    0.75   0.20   0.014   0.19   0.21   1.03     386        106        7.5      9.9    10.8     534.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
                                      KUB - Updated March 2018 - Open Pit and Underground 
                                                   Potential Review Necessary 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Measured                                                                                                             - 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Indicated      32.9    0.69   0.19   0.014   0.13   0.12   0.93     226         63        4.7      4.3    3.9      306.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
       M+I         32.9    0.69   0.19   0.014   0.13   0.12   0.93     226         63        4.7      4.3    3.9      306.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Inferred        4.7    0.7    0.19   0.014   0.12   0.12   0.94      33         9         0.7      0.6    0.6      44.5 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    KUB TOTAL      37.6    0.69   0.19   0.014   0.13   0.12   0.93     259         72        5.3      4.9    4.5      349.9 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
                                    VOD - Updated February 2017 - No Underground Potential 
                                                       - No New Drilling 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Measured        0.6    0.74   0.22   0.012   0.29   0.32   1.24      5          1         0.1      0.2    0.2       7.6 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Indicated       3.2    0.85   0.21   0.017   0.16   0.16   1.13      27         7         0.5      0.5    0.5      36.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
       M+I          3.8    0.85   0.21   0.016   0.20   0.19   1.15      32         8         0.6      0.7    0.7      43.9 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Inferred        1.0    0.81   0.22   0.016   0.17   0.16   1.06      8          2         0.2      0.2    0.2      11.0 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    VOD TOTAL       4.8    0.83   0.21   0.016   0.18   0.18   1.13      40         10        0.8      0.9    0.9      54.6 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
                                                             TOTAL 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
    Measured       11.2    0.71   0.18   0.011   0.23   0.26   0.99      80         20        1.3      2.5    3.0      110.8 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Indicated      107.0   0.74   0.20   0.015   0.15   0.15   1.00     787        217        16.2     16.0   16.6    1,075.1 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
       M+I         118.2   0.73   0.20   0.015   0.16   0.17   1.00     867        237        17.5     18.5   19.6    1,185.9 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
    Inferred       37.0    0.79   0.22   0.017   0.17   0.18   1.08     290         81        6.0      6.4    6.6      398.2 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
      TOTAL        155.1   0.75   0.21   0.015   0.16   0.17   1.02    1,157       319        23.5     24.9   26.0    1,581.6 
----------------  ------  -----  -----  ------  -----  -----  -----  ---------  ---------  ---------  -----  -----  ---------- 
 

Numbers may not be concise due to rounding.

Glossary

DEFINITIONS OF EXPLORATION RESULTS, RESOURCES & RESERVES

EXTRACTED FROM THE JORC CODE: (December 2012) (www.jorc.org)

A 'Mineral Resource' is a concentration or occurrence of material of intrinsic economic interest in or on the Earth's crust in such form, quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics and continuity of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge. Mineral Resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into Inferred, Indicated and Measured categories.

An 'Inferred Mineral Resource' is that part of a Mineral Resource for which tonnage, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a low level of confidence. It is inferred from geological evidence and assumed but not verified geological and/or grade continuity. It is based on information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes which may be limited or of uncertain quality and reliability.

An 'Indicated Mineral Resource' is that part of a Mineral Resource for which tonnage, densities, shape, physical characteristics, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a reasonable level of confidence. It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. The locations are too widely or inappropriately spaced to confirm geological and/or grade continuity but are spaced closely enough for continuity to be assumed.

A 'Measured Mineral Resource' is that part of a Mineral Resource for which tonnage, densities, shape, physical characteristics, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a high level of confidence. It is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. The locations are spaced closely enough to confirm geological and/or grade continuity.

An 'Ore Reserve' is the economically mineable part of a Measured and/or Indicated Mineral Resource. It includes diluting materials and allowances for losses, which may occur when the material is mined. Appropriate assessments and studies have been carried out, and include consideration of and modification by realistically assumed mining, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors. These assessments demonstrate at the time of reporting that extraction could reasonably be justified. Ore Reserves are sub-divided in order of increasing confidence into Probable Ore Reserves and Proved Ore Reserves.

This information is provided by RNS

The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

END

UPDBUGDURUGBGIB

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

May 02, 2018 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT)

1 Year Amur Minerals Chart

1 Year Amur Minerals Chart

1 Month Amur Minerals Chart

1 Month Amur Minerals Chart

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock