Skip to main content

AI assistant

Sign in to chat with this filing

The assistant answers questions, extracts KPIs, and summarises risk factors directly from the filing text.

SUNSTONE METALS LTD Capital/Financing Update 2012

Oct 10, 2012

65870_rns_2012-10-10_de3fcc01-cdff-43d1-812f-d71a22b37b67.pdf

Capital/Financing Update

Open in viewer

Opens in your device viewer

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ASX: AVI
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT
11 October 2012
----- End of picture text -----

Scoping Study shows viability of Viscaria Project, Sweden; Outlines potential for substantial increase in economics by further resource drilling

Highlights

  • Scoping Study confirms the technical and economic viability for a coppermagnetite mining operation at the Viscaria Project in Sweden, identifies a pathway to deliver significant growth to the value of the Viscaria project and validates the approach implemented by Avalon’s new management team;

  • Scoping Study Results indicate that a Base Case open pit mining scenario has a NPV of US$61M (using US$3.25/lb Cu - current Cu price is US$3.69/lb) and will produce 9,400t of Cu and 382,000t of Fe per annum at a C1 cash cost (net of Fe credits) of US$0.65/lb;

  • Scoping Study outlines three value creation scenarios, Development Cases A, B and C, which by converting Exploration Targets to Mineral Resources have potential NPV’s of US$111M, US$170M and US$198M with predicted C1 cash costs of US$0.47/lb, US$1.03/lb and US$1.03/lb respectively;

  • At current copper prices, Development Cases A, B and C scenarios have NPV’s of US$186M, US$272M and US$312M respectively, with Development Case C envisaging annual Cu production of 25,500t and Fe production of 519,000t;

  • A major drill program will commence in November 2012 designed to convert Exploration Targets to Mineral Resources to underpin delivery of the Development Cases as outlined in the Scoping Study;

  • Drilling completed at the A and D Zone prospects earlier in 2012 showed that the copper and copper-magnetite mineralisation extends beyond the current Mineral Resource boundaries, therefore demonstrating that extending the existing Mineral Resources is possible;

  • Avalon’s management team has a demonstrated track record at Discovery Metals Limited and Meridian Minerals Limited of creating shareholder value by extending Mineral Resources.

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 1

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Australian resources company, Avalon Minerals Limited (‘ Avalon’ or ‘ Company’ ) (ASX: AVI) is pleased to announce the results of a Scoping Study completed on the Viscaria Project by Xstract Mining Consultants.

The Scoping Study assessed a Base Case open pit mining scenario which uses the Mineral Resources currently defined on the Viscaria Project, as well as three Development Cases to convert existing Exploration Targets into Mineral Resources through an extensional drill program.

The economic assessments used price assumptions of US$3.25/lb copper and US$150/t magnetite (the current copper price is US$3.69/lb).

The Company’s Managing Director Mr Jeremy Read said, “The Scoping Study demonstrates the viability of a copper-magnetite mining operation at Viscaria, but more importantly defines a clear pathway for Avalon to create significant value at the Viscaria Project through the growth of the existing Mineral Resources.”

“The Development Cases assessed in the Scoping Study show that by extending the existing Mineral Resources, the Viscaria Project has the potential to produce 25,500t of Cu and 519,000t of Fe on an annual basis and potentially generate a project NPV in excess of $300M,” he added.

“Commencing in November 2012, Avalon will start a 6 month drill program, the goal of which will be to define the Mineral Resource extensions to allow our Development Cases to be delivered. Therefore, we anticipate the next 6 months will be an exciting time for Avalon,” Mr Read said.

A comparison of the Base and Development Cases is given in Table 1.

Base Case open pit mining scenario

The Base Case open pit mining scenario assessed the viability and potential value of the currently defined Mineral Resources on the Viscaria Project.

The current Mineral Resources on the Viscaria Project are defined in Table 2.

The existing Mineral Resources were subjected to open pit optimisations using the parameters outlined in Table 3.

Using these parameters, several open pit shells were generated along the near-surface trends of the A Zone, B Zone and D Zone Mineral Resources (Figure 1).

During this exercise it was established that only the D Zone Pit and the A Zone Pit-A significantly contributed to the project NPV and therefore, only these prospects were included in the Base Case open pit mining scenario. Figure 2 and Table 4 show the production profile developed for the Base Case scenario.

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 2

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Table 1: Comparison of the Base and Development Cases

Scenario Base Case Devt Case A Devt Case B Devt Case C
Tonnage and Grade 11.0 Mt @ 0.50%
Cu 22.2% Fe
15.5 Mt @ 0.46%
Cu 23.1% Fe
18.5 Mt @ 0.80%
Cu 19.4% Fe
20.2 Mt @ 0.86%
Cu 20.0% Fe
Optimum Mining Rate 2.1 Mtpa 3.0 Mtpa 3.3 Mtpa 3.1 Mtpa
Mine Life 5.5 years 5.3 years 5.6 years 5.6 years
Pre-Production Capex USD 144 M USD 179 M USD 201 M USD 212 M
Life-of-Mine Capex USD 155 M USD 194 M USD 315 M USD 350 M
C1 Cash Cost (net of
Fe Credits)
US$0.65/lb US$0.47/lb US$1.03/lb US$1.03/lb
NPV10% REAL USD 61 M USD 111 M USD 170 M USD 198 M
NPV at Prices + 10% USD 114 M USD 186 M USD 272 M USD 312 M
NPV at Prices - 10% USD 8 M USD 37 M USD 68 M USD 84 M

Table 2: Currently Defined Mineral Resources on the Viscaria Project

Resource Name JORC
Classification
Tonnes (t) Cu Grade
(%)
Cu Metal
(t)
A Zone* Measured 14,439,000 1.66 239,000
Indicated 4,690,000 1.22 57,000
Inferred 2,480,000 1.03 26,000
Subtotal 21,609,000 1.49 322,000
B Zone* Measured 123,000 1.33 2,000
Indicated 4,118,000 0.72 30,000
Inferred 15,410,000 0.77 118,000
Subtotal 19,650,000 0.76 150,000
D Zone
Cu Resource

Indicated**
3,500,000 0.94 32,900

Inferred**
1,870,000 0.80 14,960
Subtotal 5,370,000 0.89 47,860
Overall Cu Total 46,629,000 1.01 519,860

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 3

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Resource Name JORC
Classification
Tonnes (t) Fe Grade
(%)
Fe Mass
Recovery
(%)
Fe Metal (t)
D Zone
Fe Resource

Indicated***
9,470,000 25.90 31.3 2,964,110
Inferred*** 5,320,000 25.60 30.8 1,638,560
Overall Fe Total 14,790,000 25.80 31.1 4,602,670
  • 2011 Mineral Resources for A Zone and B Zone are reported above a cut-off grade of 0.4% Cu. ** 2012 Copper Mineral Resource for D Zone above a cut-off grade of 0.4% Cu.

* 2012 Iron Mineral Resource for D Zone above a cut-off grade of 15% Fe Mass Recovery.

Table 3: Pit optimisation parameters

Parameter Unit Value Comments
Overallpit slope angle Degrees 55
Copper Price USD/t USD7,165 USD3.25/lb Cu
Magnetite Price USD/t USD150 Assumed price at end of
slurry pipe
Mining Cost(ore) USD/t USD4.55
Mining Cost(waste) USD/t USD4.55
Mining Recovery % 95%
Mining Dilution % 5%
Metallurgical Recovery % Cu 90%
% Fe 76%
Concentrate Grade % Cu 25%
% Fe 69%
Processing Costs USD/t ore USD12.04
Admin Costs USD/t ore USD3.08
Payable Copper % Cu contained 98%
Payable Magnetite % Fe contained 98%

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 4

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Site overview showing pit optimisation shells

==> picture [495 x 294] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 5

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [173 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

Figure 2: Base Case production profile
----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [365 x 264] intentionally omitted <==

Table 4: Base Case production summary

Year Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu % Fe Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed

Magne
Conc
Produc
(kDMT
tite
ed
)

Magne
Conc
Produc
(kDMT
tite
ed
)

Cont
Iron
(kt)
ained
2013
2014 1,050 0.50 22.2 18.9 4.7 274 1
90
2015 2,100 0.50 22.2 37.7 9.4 549 3
82
2016 2,100 0.50 22.2 37.7 9.4 549 3
82
2017 2,100 0.50 22.2 37.7 9.4 549 3
82
2018 2,100 0.50 22.2 37.7 9.4 549 3
82
2019 1,518 0.50 22.2 27.3 6.8 396 2
75
2020
Total 10,968 0.5 22.2 197 49 2,86
5
1,9
91

A summary of the e c onomic a ssessmen t of the B ase Case open pit mining scenario i s di s played in Table 5.

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [4 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 6

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Development Case A open pit mining scenario

The first value creation scenario assessed was Development Case A, which includes the Base Case open pits, as well as an exploration target of extending the D Zone Mineral Resource 300m along strike and 35m in depth. It must be noted that this exploration target is conceptual in nature as there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.

This exploration target is interpreted to be relatively low exploration risk because the D Zone mineralisation is open along strike and is getting higher grade and thicker at depth (see announcement to ASX on 29 August 2012). Figure 3 and Table 6 show the production profile developed for this scenario.

Table 5: Summary of the economic assessment of the Base Case mining scenario

Base Case D Zone Open Pit and A Zone Open Pit-A D Zone Open Pit and A Zone Open Pit-A
Tonnage and Grade 11.0 Mt @ 0.50% Cu 22.2% Fe
Optimum Mining Rate 2.1 Mtpa
Mine Life 5.5 years
Pre-Production Capex USD 144 M Includes $18.3M pre-strip
Life-of-Mine Capex USD 155 M Excludes closure costs
C1 Cash Cost (net of Fe
Credits)
US$0.65/lb
NPV10% REAL USD 61 M USD3.25/lb
Cu
USD150/t
Magnetite
NPV + USD 114 M Prices + 10%
NPV - USD 8 M Prices – 10%

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 7

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Development Case A production profile

==> picture [373 x 274] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [6 x 274] intentionally omitted <==

Table 6: Development Case A production summary

Year
Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu
% Fe
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed
Magn
Conc
Produ
(kDM
etite
ced
T)
Con
Iron
(kt)
tained
Year
Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu
% Fe
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed
Magn
Conc
Produ
(kDM
etite
ced
T)
Con
Iron
(kt)
tained
2013
2014 1,500
0.50
22.2
26.9
6.7
39
2
2
72
2015 3,000
0.50
22.2
53.9
13.5
78
4
5
85
2016 3,000
0.50
22.2
53.9
13.5
78
4
5
85
2017 3,000
0.50
22.2
53.9
13.5
78
4
5
85
2018 3,000
0.40
24.9
43.0
10.8
89
6
6
23
2019 1,968
0.38
25.4
26.9
6.7
60
2
4
18
2020
Total 15,468
0.5
23.1
259
65
4,2
41
2,
947

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [4 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 8

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

A summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case A open pit mining scenario is displayed in Table 7.

Table 7: Summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case A mining scenario

Development Case A Base Case +
Exploration Target extend D
deeper at similar grades
Zone 300m along strike and 35m
Tonnage and Grade 15.5 Mt @ 0.46% Cu 23.1% Fe
Optimum Mining Rate 3.0 Mtpa
Mine Life 5.3 years
Pre-Production Capex USD 179 M Includes $26.1M pre-strip
Life-of-Mine Capex USD 194 M Excludes closure costs
C1 Cash Cost (net of Fe
Credits)
US$0.47/lb
NPV10% REAL USD 111 M USD3.25/lb Cu USD150/t Magnetite
NPV + USD 186 M Prices + 10%
NPV - USD 37 M Prices – 10%

Development Case B open pit/underground mining scenario

The second value creation scenario assessed is Development Case B, which includes the previously described Development Case A with the addition of an exploration target of 3.0Mt @ 2.5% Cu from the A Zone prospect area that could be mined by underground methods. It must be noted that this exploration target is conceptual in nature as there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.

This exploration target is interpreted to have moderate exploration risk as its size and grade are relatively high. However, historically when the A Zone mineralisation was being

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 9

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

m i ned the a verage gr a de of or e mined w a s 2.5% c o pper and Avalon’s initial ass e ssment o f the A Zone p rospect i n dicates t h at there i s sufficie n t scope f o r a resou r ce of app r oximatel y 3.0Mt to be delineate d . Fi g ure 4 an d Table 8 show the production profile developed f o r this sce n ario.

Figure 4: Development Case B production profile

==> picture [333 x 241] intentionally omitted <==

Table 8: Development Case B production summary

Year Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu % Fe Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed

Magne
Conc
Produ
(kDMT
tite
ced
)

Cont
Iron
(kt)
ained
2013
2014 1,650 0.60 19.4 35.9 9.0 366 2
54
2015 3,300 0.60 19.4 71.8 17.9 732 5
09
2016 3,300 0.81 19.4 95.9 24.0 732 5
09
2017 3,300 0.88 19.4 104.6 26.2 732 5
09
2018 3,300 0.88 19.4 104.7 26.2 732 5
09
2019 3,300 0.88 19.4 104.7 26.2 73
1
5
08
2020

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [4 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 1 0

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Year Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu % Fe Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contained
Copper
(kt)

Magnetite
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)

Contained
Iron
(kt)
Total 18,468 0.8 19.4 529 132 4,091 2,843

A summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case B open pit/underground mining scenario is displayed in Table 9. Figure 5 displays the impact of various tonnages and grades for the A Zone Underground exploration target on the overall project NPV. This figure indicates that from the A Zone underground a minimum of 2.0Mt @ 2% Cu is needed to positively impact the overall Viscaria Project NPV.

Table 9: Summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case B mining scenario

Development Case B Devt Case A +
Exploration target of 3.0 Mt @ 2.5% Cu from A Zone Underground
Devt Case A +
Exploration target of 3.0 Mt @ 2.5% Cu from A Zone Underground
Tonnage and Grade 18.5 Mt @ 0.80% Cu 19.4% Fe
Optimum Mining Rate 3.3 Mtpa
Mine Life 5.6 years
Pre-Production Capex USD 201 M Includes $33.7 M pre-strip
Life-of-Mine Capex USD 315 M Excludes closure costs
C1 Cash Cost (net of Fe
Credits)
US$1.03/lb
NPV10% REAL USD 170 M USD3.25/lb
Cu
USD150/t
Magnetite
NPV + USD 272 M Prices + 10%
NPV - USD 68 M Prices – 10%

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 11

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Impact of the additional material at various grades and tonnages from the A Zone UG

==> picture [451 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

$120
3.5% Cu
$100
$80 3.0% Cu
$60
2.5% Cu
$40
$20 2.0% Cu
$-
1.5% Cu
$(20)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Resource Mt
NPV10% $M
----- End of picture text -----

Development Case C open pit/underground mining scenario

The third value creation scenario assessed is Development Case C, which includes Development Case B with the addition of an exploration target of 1.75Mt @ 1.6% Cu from the D Zone prospect area that could be mined by underground methods. It must be noted that this exploration target is conceptual in nature as there has been insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.

Similar to Development Case A, this exploration target is interpreted to be relatively low exploration risk because the D Zone mineralisation is getting higher grade and thicker at depth. Figure 6 and Table 10 show the production profile developed for this scenario.

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 12

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [5 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: Development Case C production profile

==> picture [363 x 262] intentionally omitted <==

Table 10: Development Case C production summary

Year
Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu
% Fe
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed
Magn
Conc
Produ
(kDM
etite
ced
T)
Con
Iron
(kt)
tained
Year
Tonnes
Mined
(kt)
% Cu
% Fe
Copper
Conc
Produced
(kDMT)
Contain
Copper
(kt)
ed
Magn
Conc
Produ
(kDM
etite
ced
T)
Con
Iron
(kt)
tained
2013
2014 1550
0.67
17.7
37.2
9.3
30
8
2
14
2015 3100
0.67
17.8
75.2
18.8
61
9
4
30
2016 3100
0.92
20.8
102.2
25.5
74
6
5
19
2017 3100
0.92
20.8
102.2
25.5
74
6
5
19
2018 3100
0.91
20.8
102.1
25.5
74
6
5
19
2019 3100
0.92
20.8
102.2
25.5
74
6
5
19
2020 3042
0.90
20.7
98.8
24.7
72
8
5
18
2021 126
2.12
4.6
9.6
2.4
5
3
Total
20,218
0.9
20.0
629
157
4,6
43
3,
227

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [54 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [55 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [4 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 1 3

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

A summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case C open pit/underground mining scenario is displayed in Table 11. Figure 7 displays the impact of various tonnages and grades for the D Zone Underground exploration target on the overall project NPV. This figure indicates that from the D Zone underground, a minimum of 1.75Mt @ 1.6% Cu is needed to positively impact the overall Viscaria Project NPV.

Table 11: Summary of the economic assessment of the Development Case C mining scenario

Development Case C Devt Case B +
Exploration Target of 1.75 Mt @ 1.6% Cu from D Zone Underground
Devt Case B +
Exploration Target of 1.75 Mt @ 1.6% Cu from D Zone Underground
Tonnage and Grade 20.2 Mt @ 0.86% Cu 20.0% Fe
Optimum Mining Rate 3.1 Mtpa
Mine Life 5.6 years
Pre-Production Capex USD 212 M Includes $34.6 M pre-strip
Life-of-Mine Capex USD 350 M Excludes closure costs
C1 Cash Cost (net of Fe
Credits)
US$1.03/lb
NPV10% REAL USD 198 M USD3.25/lb
Cu
USD150/t
Magnetite
NPV + USD 312 M Prices + 10%
NPV - USD 84 M Prices – 10%

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 14

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Impact of the additional material at various grades and tonnages from the D Zone UG

==> picture [444 x 263] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

$100
2.0% Cu
$80
1.8% Cu
$60
1.6% Cu
$40
1.4% Cu
$20
1.2% Cu
$-
1.0% Cu
$(20)
0.8% Cu
$(40)
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Resource Mt
NPV10% $M
----- End of picture text -----

Cost and Revenue Assumptions

The capital costs used in each of the mining scenarios have been summarised in Table 12, the operating costs assumptions in Table 13 and the revenue assumptions in Table 14. Copper cash operating costs for each mining scenario in comparison to other copper producers is displayed in Figure 8.

The C1 copper cash operating costs, net of iron credits, for the Base Case and Development Case A open pit mining scenarios are predicted to be in the lower quartile of copper producers, while the Development Case B and Development Case C open pit/underground mining scenarios have C1 copper cash operating costs that are intermediate in comparison.

Future Resource Definition Program

The Scoping Study results show that the conversion of the exploration targets assessed in Development Case A, B and C to Mineral Resources has the potential to grow the NPV of the Viscaria Project significantly from USD$61M to USD$198M using a copper price of US$3.25/lb.

Therefore, over the next six months Avalon plans to complete an extensive resource definition drill program focussed on assessing the potential of these exploration targets to deliver the tonnage and grade assumed in various Development Cases detailed in the Scoping Study. Drilling conducted earlier in 2012 and reported to the ASX between March – July 2012, demonstrated that the existing copper and copper-magnetite mineralisation extends beyond the current boundaries of the A and D Zone Mineral Resources. This

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 15

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

drilling proved the concept that it is probable that the A and D Zone Mineral Resources will be able to be extended.

Given the Company management team’s past record with Discovery Metals Limited and Meridian Minerals Limited for increasing project Mineral Resources and creating value, Avalon has the expertise to execute this strategy and significantly increase the value of the Viscaria Project.

Table 12: Capital Cost assumptions

Item Base Case
USD M
Devt
Case A
USDM
Devt
Case B
USDM
Devt
Case C
USDM
Comments
Process Plant 111.7 138.3 146.5 141.1 Scalable on production
capacity
Pit D site establishment 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Includes provision of site
services and access roads
Pit A site establishment 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Underground Mine
Establishment, De-watering &
Rehabilitation
- - 56.0 56.0
New Underground
Development
- - 45.0 82.5
Studies and Test work 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Pre-Strip 18.3 26.1 33.7 34.6
Tailings Storage Facility 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Replacement Capital 11.0 15.5 19.7 22.1
Closure Costs - - - - Not Included
Total 155 194 315 350

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 16

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Table 13: Operating Cost assumptions

Parameter Comments
Unit Value
Mining Cost (ore) USD/t USD4.55
Mining Cost (waste) USD/t USD4.55
Processing Costs USD/t ore USD12.04 Variable – assumes 40% fixed
costs and 12.04/t @ 1.5Mtpa
Admin Costs USD/t ore USD3.08
Copper Conc. Transport USD/DMT conc 15.75 Assumes local smelter
Magnetite Conc. Transport USD/DMT conc 1.50 Assumes slurry pipe to LKAB

Table 14: Revenue assumptions

Parameter Comments
Unit Value
Overall pit slope angle Degrees 55
Copper Price USD/t USD7,165 $3.25/lb Cu
Magnetite Price USD/t USD150 For 69% Fe magnetite pellets
Mining Recovery % 95%
Mining Dilution % 5%
Metallurgical Recovery % Cu 90%
% Fe 76%
Concentrate Grade % Cu 25%
% Fe 69%
Payable Copper % Cu contained 98%
Payable Magnetite % Fe contained 98%
Copper Conc. Treatment
charge
c/lb Cu 45
Copper Conc.
Refining charge
c/lb Cu 4.5
USD/dmt 28
% 0.75

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 17

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: Copper Cash Operating Costs for each mining scenario in comparison to other copper producers

==> picture [441 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

For further information please visit www.avalonminerals.com.au or contact:

Mr Jeremy Read - Managing Director Mr James Harris Avalon Minerals Limited Professional Public Relations Tel: 07 3368 9888 Tel: 08 9388 0944 Em: [email protected] Em: [email protected] www.twitter.com/avalonminerals

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 18

==> picture [596 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources and exploration targets is based upon information reviewed by Mr Jeremy Read BSc (Hons) who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Read is a full time employee of Avalon Minerals Ltd and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Read consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Mineral Resource estimate for the D Zone prospect was compiled and prepared by Stefan Mujdrica (MAusIMM) of Xstract Mining Consultants who is a Competent Person as defined by the Australasian Code for the reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code) 2004 Edition and who consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Mineral Resource estimate for A and B Zones was compiled and prepared by Dr Bielin Shi (MAusIMM, MAIG) of CSA Global Pty. Ltd. who is a Competent Person as defined by the Australasian Code for the reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code) 2004 Edition and who consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Scoping Study results were compiled and prepared by Tim Horsley (MAusIMM) of Xstract Mining Consultants who is a Competent Person as defined by the Australasian Code for the reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code) 2004 Edition and who consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The Base Case includes material from Inferred Mineral Resources and therefore, exploration drilling and reestimation may result in changes to the economically minable portion of the Mineral Resources.

Development Cases A, B and C includes material that has not yet been discovered or defined and is considered an exploration target.

JORC – Exploration Targets

It is common practice for a company to comment on and discuss its exploration in terms of target size and type. The information relating to exploration targets should not be misunderstood or misconstrued as an estimate of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves. Hence the terms Resource(s) or Reserve(s) have not been used in this context. The potential quantity and grade is conceptual in nature, since there has been insufficient work completed to define them beyond exploration targets and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource.

==> picture [595 x 41] intentionally omitted <==

Page 19