Overview
| Stage | Feasibility |
| Mine Type | Open Pit |
| Commodities |
|
| Mining Method |
|
| Mine Life | 7 years (as of Jan 1, 2019) |
Feasibility Study considers oxide material through a heap leach process.
Exploration activities continue to improve knowledge on the deposit and processing options studied. |
Source:
p. 1,2
| Company | Interest | Ownership |
|
Lundin Mining Corp.
|
100 %
|
Indirect
|
|
Mineração Maracá Indústria e Comércio S.A.
(operator)
|
100 %
|
Direct
|
Lundin Mining acquired, among other things, all of the issued and outstanding shares of Yamana Brazil Holdings B.V., which owns a 100% ownership stake in Mineração Maracá Indústria e Comércio S/A, which, in turn, owns the Chapada copper-gold mine located in Brazil, from Yamana Gold Inc.
Yamana retained a 2.0% net smelter return royalty on any future gold production from the Suruca gold deposit.
Contractors
- Subscription is required.
Summary:
Several genetic models have been suggested for Chapada, including: (i) a deformed and metamorphosed porphyry-type copper-gold deposit (Richardson et al., 1986; Oliveira et al., 2015), (ii) a deformed and metamorphosed volcanogenic disseminated sulphide deposit (Silva and Sá, 1986; Kuyumjian, 1989), and (iii) epithermal copper-gold deposit overprinted by metamorphic remobilization (Kuyumjian, 2000).
Currently, the most accepted metallogenetic model for Chapada is a metamorphosed porphyry model associated with skarn system. The magmatic hydrothermal system was generated in island arc stage setting (approximately 884 Ma to 879 Ma) and posteriorly overprinted by remobilization of orogenic fluids during Brasiliano events (ca. 630 Ma).
The porphyry, skarn, and epithermal system can be separated into three distinct mineralization styles, based on hydrothermal alteration and metal association:
- Copper-Gold Porphyry System (Chapada Corpo Principal, Corpo Sul, and Sucupira);
- Gold (Silver-Lead-Zinc) Distal Skarn (Suruca);
- Copper-Gold Proximal Skarn (Suruca SW).
The Chapada and Suruca deposits are located in the metavolcano-sedimentary sub-unit of Mara Rosa Sequence.
MINERALIZATION.
SURUCA.
The Suruca SW mineralization was discovered in 2017 exhibiting similar geological features to the Chapada deposit. The mineralization was delineated along a 2.1 km strike, 650 m width, and average depth of 50 m, and was par ........
Summary:
At Suruca, pit design parameters are as follows:
For saprolite and oxide material types:
- 5 m bench height,
- 60° bench face angle,
- 4 m to 8 m safety berm,
- 15 m ramp width at maximum 10% gradient.
For sulphide material type:
- 30 m bench height,
- 70° bench face angle,
- 12 m safety berm,
- 25 m ramp width at maximum 10% gradient.
The start date of the Suruca oxide mine is currently under consideration by Yamana. Studies are ongoing to assess the Suruca oxide and sulphide pits as an integrated complex.
Currently, Suruca sulphide reserves are planned to be mined at the end of the Chapada mine life and ore from Suruca Sulphide will be fed into a modified Chapada processing plant at a rate of 8 Mtpa. However, alternative scenarios are currently being studied to process Suruca Sulphide with a standalone CIL or CIP plant.
Source:
- subscription is required.
Flow Sheet:
Summary:
- subscription is required.
Combined production numbers are reported under
Chapada
Operational Metrics:
| Metrics | |
|
Waste tonnes, LOM
| 23,004 kt of oxide * |
|
Ore tonnes mined, LOM
| 23,326 kt of oxide * |
|
Total tonnes mined, LOM
| 196,057 kt * |
|
Tonnes processed, LOM
| 22,526 kt of oxide * |
|
Annual processing rate
| 8 Mt * |
|
Mining scale, tpd
| 80,000 t |
* According to 2019 study.
Reserves at October 10, 2019:
Suruca gold only Mineral Reserves are estimated at a cut-off grade of 0.19 g/t Au for oxide material and 0.30 g/t Au for sulphide material.
The Mineral Resources as at 30th June 2020 at Suruca mine are unchanged from 10 October 2019.
| Category | OreType | Tonnage | Commodity | Grade | Contained Metal |
|
Proven
|
Sulphide
|
692 kt
|
Gold
|
0.49 g/t
|
0.01 M oz
|
|
Proven
|
Oxide
|
10,761 kt
|
Gold
|
0.41 g/t
|
0.14 M oz
|
|
Probable
|
Sulphide
|
41,976 kt
|
Gold
|
0.56 g/t
|
0.75 M oz
|
|
Probable
|
Oxide
|
11,765 kt
|
Gold
|
0.41 g/t
|
0.16 M oz
|
|
Proven & Probable
|
Sulphide
|
42,669 kt
|
Gold
|
0.56 g/t
|
0.76 M oz
|
|
Proven & Probable
|
Oxide
|
22,526 kt
|
Gold
|
0.41 g/t
|
0.3 M oz
|
|
Proven & Probable
|
Total
|
65,195 kt
|
Gold
|
0.51 g/t
|
1.07 M oz
|
|
Measured
|
Total
|
12,737 kt
|
Gold
|
0.42 g/t
|
0.17 M oz
|
|
Indicated
|
Total
|
134,780 kt
|
Gold
|
0.54 g/t
|
2.32 M oz
|
|
Measured & Indicated
|
Total
|
147,518 kt
|
Gold
|
0.53 g/t
|
2.49 M oz
|
|
Inferred
|
Total
|
12,565 kt
|
Gold
|
0.48 g/t
|
0.19 M oz
|
Commodity Production Costs:
| | Commodity | Units | Average |
|
Assumed price
|
Gold
|
USD
|
...... &nbs
|
* According to 2019 study / presentation.
Operating Costs:
| | Units | 2019 |
|
OP mining costs ($/t mined)
|
USD
| 1.27 * |
|
Processing costs ($/t milled)
|
USD
| ...... |
|
G&A ($/t milled)
|
USD
| ...... |
|
Total operating costs ($/t milled)
|
USD
| ...... |
* According to 2019 study.
- Subscription is required.
- Subscription is required.