• Data Access
  • Your Email  
  • Your Email  
Keep me signed in.
Forgot your password?
Close
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Enter the email you signed up with and we'll email it to you.
  • Your Email  
Close
Back
MDO
Mining Data Solutions
  • Home
  • Database
  • Subscribe
  • Sign In
  • Sign In
Canada
Mary River Mine

This page is not tailored to
devices with screen width under 750 px.
 Location:
201 km E from Shimik, Nunavut, Canada

  Regional Office:
Noble House 1088 Unit C 6-C7
Iqaluit
Nunavut, Canada
X0A 0H0
WebsiteWeb
Additional Resources for Suppliers & Investors
Drill results over 30 g/t Au
Stay on top of recent discoveries.
Search drill results by commodity and grade.
Largest mines in the Americas
Mining and mill throughput capaciites.
Full profiles of select mines and projects.
Deepest underground mines
Shaft depth and mill throughput data.
Full profiles of select mines and projects.
Heavy mobile equipment
HME type, model, size and quantity.
Full profiles of select mines and projects.
Permitting and construction projects
Projects at the permitting or construction stage. Full profiles of select projects.
Mines with remote camps
Camp size, mine location and contacts.
Full profiles of select mines and projects.
Mines & projects in Canada
A list of country's mines and projects.
Full profiles of select mines and projects.
  • Overview
  • Owners
  • Geology
  • Mining
  • Processing
  • Production
  • Reserves
  • Personnel
  • Filings & News

Thank you for browsing through mine profiles compiled by the Mining Data Online team.

Would you like to subcribe or schedule a Demo?
  • Name:
     
  • Company:
     
  • Position:
     
  • Phone:
  • Email:
  • Message:

Overview

StageProduction
Mine TypeOpen Pit
Commodities
  • Iron
  • Iron Ore
Mining Method
  • Truck & Shovel / Loader
Mine Life35 years (as of Jan 1, 2017)
Given the decrease in ArcelorMittal’s ownership in Baffinland and the termination of its operator rights, starting from 2018, Baffinland is no longer included in ArcelorMittal reporting.


Owners

Source: p. 250
CompanyInterestOwnership
ArcelorMittal SA 28.76 % Indirect
Nunavut Iron Ore Acquisition Inc. 71.24 % Indirect
In March 2011, ArcelorMittal acquired 70% of Baffinland Iron Mines Corp., with Nunavut Iron Ore Inc. owning the remaining 30%. In February 2013, ArcelorMittal and Nunavut Iron Ore entered into a joint arrangement and equalized their shareholdings at 50/50. ArcelorMittal retained operator and marketing rights and, in consideration for its increased shareholding, Nunavut Iron Ore assumed certain project funding obligations. During 2016, 2017 and 2018, following part of the capital increases being subscribed only by Nunavut Iron Ore, ArcelorMittal’s shareholding decreased to 44.54%, 31.07% and 28.76%, respectively.

Deposit Type

  • Iron formation hosted


Summary:

The Mary River deposits can be described by the depositional model proposed for Algoma-type iron formation. The characteristic stratigraphy for Algoma-type iron formations comprise of a lower succession of typically intermediate volcanics interbedded with acid volcanics, volcaniclastic sediments, and their sedimentary derivatives. This succession is followed by banded iron formation comprised of alternating cherty bands and iron oxides or bedded or banded pure oxides ranging from metres to hundreds of metres in thickness, depending on depths of the original basins. This succession in turn is overlain by a sequence of volcanics and volcaniclastic sediments often intruded by ultramafics and granitic intrusive bodies.

Mary River Group greenstone belts across northern Baffin Island consist of variable amounts of banded iron formation (BIF), which are associated with metasedimentary, metavolcanic and metaigneous rocks (Jackson et. al., 1978a, b, c; Jackson and Morgan, 1978). The banded oxide and silicate facies iron formations comprise the lateral equivalents of the high-grade Mary River deposits, which are almost entirely composed of iron oxides, suggesting a significant enrichment of iron through secondary processes.

Duke (2010) suggests growing evidence for a secondary Fe enrichment mechanism associated with widespread retrograded mylonitic detachments along the base of the high grade and enriched BIF across north central Baffin Island in places such as the Mary, Turner, Cockburn and Rowley River areas. These detachment faults are marked by a chlorite retrograded mylonitic structural contact between underlying ductile rising domes of polydeformed mafic-felsic gneisses and overlying supracrustal sinking keels which host the Mary River iron deposits (Duke and McCleod, 2009). These detachments are thought to be post regional folding of the Hudsonian orogeny around 1,850 Ma (Duke, 2010).

The high grade massive and enriched iron oxide ores occur where Mary River BIF border directly on detachment schist that separates the mylonitic roof of infrastructural domes from the high strained keels of Mary River Group. At detachment schist contacts, magnetite BIF shows evidence of undergoing extreme pressure solution resulting in the highly efficient leaching of quartz from magnetite. In large deposits, the primary banding defining early isoclinal folding is completely destroyed by metamorphic differentiation and recrystallization, resulting in >100m thicknesses of massive magnetite/hematite. On the flanks of the high grade iron deposits, Feenrichment is marked by various degrees of silica loss due to continued silica removal. Several regional examples of exposed giant quartz veins occurring along detachment schist boundaries adjacent to high grade magnetite zones account for the removal of silica from the banded iron formations. Duke (2010) suggests that the hydrothermal removal of silica was likely facilitated by dewatering of the nearby footwall serpentinized komatiites.

The Mary River deposits are comprised of a number of iron formations which have been enriched and altered to varying degrees. Original banded iron formations comprised of alternating layers of magnetite and hematite, are preserved in several locations along strike of existing high grade deposits. The regional metamorphism and folding associated with the Hudsonian Orogeny resulted in significant crustal thickening. This period also resulted in zones of weak to very efficient leaching of silica. Subsequent hypogene and metamorphic events led to the alteration of magnetite to hematite and specular hematite. Surface outcrops differ in iron, silica and sulphur content and in the proportions of their main oxide minerals – hematite, magnetite and specularite. The microscopic examination of drill core specimens by R.A. Blais (1964) suggests that magnetite was the stable mineral of the iron formations during metamorphism (amphibolite facies), and was replaced to various degrees by hematite (martitization), resulting in a range of hematite-magnetite (martite) compositions. This alteration process occurred during a late stage of metamorphism, under conditions of localized stress and high oxygen pressure, and may have been associated with folding and faulting of the tabular high-grade magnetite iron formation.

The strong structural influence on channelling of oxidizing solutions is supported by the alignment of lineations produced by tubular pores in the hard high-grade hematite iron formation (i.e., parallel to the axial plane and plunge of the synform) and the concentration of high-grade hematite ore at the core of the fold. Euhedral specularite crystals in magnetite rock indicate that specularite did not form by a process similar to martitization, but through the possible metamorphic replacement of magnetite. It is also possible that the specularite and other hematite mineralization formed as a primary rather than secondary mineral. However, what caused the crystallization of flaky, course-grained specularite as compared to fine-grained massive hematite is not fully understood. Field evidence suggests that higher fluid or vapour pressures in zones of shearing may have facilitated the growth of specularite.


Mining Methods

  • Truck & Shovel / Loader


Summary:

Ore and waste material is drilled and blasted using both large and small drill rigs drilling 4” to 6” diameter blast holes. The blasts are designed such that material can be mined out in 5m benches. An on-site explosives plant producing an emulsion product will be used to supply the explosives to the blast hole. The holes will be primed and tied together to a non-electric detonating cord that will be used to detonate the blast. Blasted material will generally be less than 800mm diameter. Any oversize will be drilled with a secondary drill and reblasted. Blast sizes will be maximized where practical to maintain large broken inventories in pit and reduce disruptions to mining operations. Blending requirements to ensure product quality will require multiple mining faces.

Hydraulic excavators and large front-end loaders are used to load 90 tonne haul trucks. A support fleet for motor graders, tracked dozers and excavators will be used to maintain the pit and waste dumps.

Waste material will be sent to a dump location Norwest of the pit. Ore will be delivered to the portable crushers at the base of the mountain. At an ultimate depth the pit will have walls that are more than 500m above the bit bottom and waste dumps of equivalent heights.


Crushing and Grinding


Processing


Summary:

The capacity of the proposed mining, comminution and handling facilities are considered modest for iron ore operations. The subarctic location will necessitate thorough weatherproofing, but otherwise the crushers, screens and other processing and transfer equipment are conventional in their selections.

The process consists of sequential crushing by jaw and cone crushers in closed-circuit with vibrating screens. The plant will deliver two products, lumps and fines, to stockpiles for blending prior to transfer to the port for ocean transport.

Lump iron ore is expected to be the main product from the Project and will be about 75% of the total production by weight. This product will have high iron grade by world standard, and will have variable impurity content, depending on the mine plan and schedule. The lump product has been found suitable for blending as direct feedstock for blast furnace iron making. The minority fines product would also be saleable depending on ........


Production:

CommodityUnits201720162015
Iron Ore Mt 4.63.21.3
All production numbers are expressed as lump & fines.

Operational Metrics:

Metrics2018201720162015
Annual mining capacity  ......  Subscription required3.5 Mt of ore
Ore tonnes mined  ......  Subscription required  ......  Subscription required3.3 Mt1.5 Mt
Subscription required - Subscription is required.

Reserves at December 31, 2017:

CategoryTonnage CommodityGrade
Proven 309 Mt Iron 65.1 %
Probable 90 Mt Iron 64.7 %
Proven & Probable 399 Mt Iron 65 %
Measured & Indicated 53 Mt Iron 65.9 %
Inferred 341 Mt Iron 66 %


Heavy Mobile Equipment:

Mine Management:

Job TitleNameProfileRef. Date
....................... Subscription required ....................... Subscription required Subscription required Sep 20, 2020
....................... Subscription required ....................... Subscription required Subscription required Sep 20, 2020
....................... Subscription required ....................... Subscription required Subscription required Sep 20, 2020
Subscription required - Subscription is required.


Corporate Filings & Presentations:

DocumentYear
................................... Subscription required 2018
Annual Report 2017
Form 20-F 2016
Form 20-F 2015
Technical Report 2011
Subscription required - Subscription is required.

Aerial view:

Subscription required - Subscription is required.

Terms of Use Privacy Policy © 2020 MDO Data Online Inc.