Upload
trinhlien
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The information given in this presentation and during Mandalay Resources Corporation’s September 12, 2016 Investor Day contain "forward-
looking statements" within the meaning of applicable securities laws, including statements relating to life of mine production plans, exploration
plans and the growth and strategy of Mandalay. Actual results and developments may differ materially from those contemplated by these
statements depending on, among other things: exploration results or production results not meeting management’s expectations; capital,
production and operating cost results not meeting current plans; and changes in commodity prices and general market and economic conditions.
The factors identified above are not intended to represent a complete list of the factors that could affect Mandalay. A description of additional
risks that could result in actual results and developments differing from those contemplated by forward looking statements in this news release
can be found under the heading “Risk Factors” in Mandalay’s annual information form dated March 30, 2016 and in its final prospectus dated
July 18, 2016, copies of which are available under Mandalay's profile at www.sedar.com. Although Mandalay has attempted to identify important
factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be
other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-
looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.
Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
Qualified Persons
The exploration programs at Costerfield and Björkdal are supervised by Chris Gregory (Member, Australian Institute of Geoscientists, VP of
Operational Geology for Mandalay and a “Qualified Person” as defined under National Instrument 43-101, Mr. Gregory regularly visits Costerfield
and Björkdal and has reviewed and approved the scientific and technical information related to these projects contained in this presentation.
The exploration programs at the Cerro Bayo and Challacollo projects are supervised by Scott Manske, Chief Cordilleran Geologist of Mandalay
Resources, and an Oregon registered Professional Geologist. A “Qualified Person” as defined by NI 43-101, he has reviewed and approved the
technical and scientific information related to these projects contained in the presentation.
Non-IFRS MeasuresThe presentations given during Mandalay Resources Corporation’s September 12, 2016 Investor Day Presentations include non-IFRS
performance measures including Adjusted EBITDA, cash costs and site all-in costs. These measures are included in these presentations
because the Company believes these are useful indicators to discuss and understand performance of the Company and its operations. These
performance measures do not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented
by other mining companies. These non-IFRS performance measures should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of
performance in accordance with IFRS. For a more detailed discussion of how the Company calculates non-IFRS performance measures and
reconciliations (where applicable) to the nearest IFRS measure please refer to the Company’s management discussion and analysis for the
quarter ended June 30, 2016. All currency references in US$ unless otherwise indicated
Forward-looking Statements
2
Mining: Reasons for undervalued mines
Poorly selected, inefficient mining method; opportunities for mechanization
Poor grade controls resulting in over-dilution or low mining recoveries
Poor preventive maintenance leading to poor availability
Higher operating costs than comparable operations
Poor knowledge of operating parameters
3
Propose mining improvements
We complete due diligence on our mining improvement hypotheses
What we look for in an acquisition
The more of these we see, the greater potential upside
If none or few of these exist, likely to be little upside in the way of mining
improvements – we will walk
4
Mandalay approach
Review existing information – geology, rock conditions, grades, etc.
Perform studies to obtain needed information – geotechnical studies, etc.
Investigate major mining method changes
1. Simplify – Focus on what works
2. Investigate
3. Implement feasible major mining method changes immediately
4. Ongoing continuous improvement
5. Upgrade prev. maintenance to enhance availability & reduce costs
Carry out incremental changes to – Improve production, lower costs,
reduce dilution and improve mining recoveries
5
Costerfield: mining improvement
Very inefficient and expensive mining method split between cut and fill and
half upper jackleg stope (HUJS) extraction
Very poor mining recoveries and significant dilution
Very poor safety record due to miner exposure to hazardous areas
MND assumed control December 2009
Interventions
Studies showed that cemented rock fill (CRF) method would be most cost
effective and enabling very good recoveries
Begun gradual implementation of mining change to CRF to obtain safer,
lower cost, higher recovery, higher production mining method
Results
Significant safety improvement, LTIFR dropped from 20 to current 0
Workforce reduction with more mechanized method
Mining costs reduced by two thirds
Significant recovery improvement and dilution reduction
Underground mining method relative costs
6
Would allow for significant lower
costs and production increase
Significantly safer mining
method to employ
Impact of mining method change in W-lode
9
Old cut & fill method
New CRF method
Improved
mining
recovery
10
Costerfield: Increased production and declining costs
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Q4-09(Dec. only)
Q4-10 Q4-11 Q4-12 Q4-13 Q4-14 Q4-15
USD
/ To
nn
e
Ton
ne
s P
er
Qu
arte
r
Mining Rate and Unit Cost
t Mined Cost/ t Mined
11
Cerro Bayo: mining improvements
Well preserved but early 1990’s vintage plant
On care and maintenance
Prior owner was utilizing manual shrinkage mining method
MND assumed control August 2010
Interventions
Restarted mining immediately in September. 2010
Immediate conversion to mechanized longhole open stoping method, no
shrinkage stopes mined by Mandalay
Gradual mining ramp-up to peak of 1,400 tpd over 3-year period
Results
Safety improvement, changing from manual to mechanized method
Significant workforce reduction compared to prior owner
Mining cost reduction of over 50%
Underground mining method relative costs
12
Would allow for both production increase
and lowering of unit costs
Open stoping significantly
safer mining method
13
Cerro Bayo: Previous shrinkage stoping methodN Upper limit of reserve
Level 350
Being developed
Hardheld Drilling
Level in production
Blasted material is mucked to remove
swell and maintain work platform
Access from the Ramp
Mucking Accesses
Hardheld Drilling
Level 300
Reserves to mine Accesses Development Hr-Vr Longholes Direction of advance Mined out Blasted material
Acc
ess
Rai
se
Re
serv
e b
ou
nd
ary R
ese
rve b
ou
nd
ary
LEYENDA
STOPE IN PRODUCTION STOPE IN DEVELOPED
Acc
ess
Rai
se
Acc
ess
Rai
se
14
Cerro Bayo: New long hole open stoping methodN
Level 285 - mined out
drilled longholes
Level 270 - mined out
Level 255 - in production
Level 240 - in production
Level 225 - being developed
Level 205 - being developed
Accesses from the ramp centrally located and
aligned vertically, where possible
Level 190 - planned
Reserves to mine Level access Longtitudinal development Longholes Direction of advance Mined out pillars
Re
serv
e b
ou
nd
ary
Re
serve
bo
un
dary
Access to the level from the main ramp
Legend
Upper limit of reserve
Longhole production inn retreat toward the level access
Longtitudinal vein development, to the lateral limits of the reserve
15
Cerro Bayo: Increased production and declining costs
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Q4-10 Q2-11 Q4-11 Q2-12 Q4-12 Q2-13 Q4-13 Q2-14 Q4-14 Q2-15 Q4-15 Q2-16
$/
Ton
ne
Ton
ne
s P
er
Qu
arte
rMining Rate and Unit Cost
t Mined Cost/ t Mined
16
Björkdal: Mining improvements
Was efficient low-cost mining method in open pit and underground
Very poor understanding of grade distribution in underground
No grade control used in underground mine
Very large mining dimensions for narrow veins
MND assumed control September, 2014
Interventions, actual and future
Implemented Blast Movement Monitoring in open pit for better grade control
Introduced best practice mapping, sampling and rapid assaying of all ore
development headings –more selective mining and rejection of waste
Better Resources and Reserves model for accurate long-term planning
Lowered stope heights for better mining control
Decreasing development and stope sizes for dilution control
Medium-term fleet change out for further dilution controls