Dumont Geometallurgical Modelling Do you know where your nickel is? AusIMM. Michelle Sciortino Johnna Muinonen John Korczak Alger St-Jean

Transcription

1 Dumont Geometallurgical Modelling Do you know where your nickel is? AusIMM Michelle Sciortino Johnna Muinonen John Korczak Alger St-Jean

2 Disclaimer Cautionary Statements Concerning Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains "forward-looking information" including without limitation statements relating to mineral reserve estimates, mineral resource estimates, realization of mineral reserve and resource estimates, capital and operating cost estimates, project and life of mine estimates, construction of the mine and related infrastructure, the timing and amount of future production, costs of production, success of mining operations, ability to obtain permitting by the time targeted, size and ranking of project upon achieving production, economic return estimates and potential upside and alternatives. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of RNC to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. The feasibility study results are estimates only and are based on a number of assumptions, any of which, if incorrect, could materially change the projected outcome. Even with the completion of the feasibility study, there are no assurances that Dumont will be placed into production. Factors that could affect the outcome include, among others: the actual results of development activities; project delays; inability to raise the funds necessary to complete development; general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; future prices of metals; availability of alternative nickel sources or substitutes; actual nickel recovery; conclusions of economic evaluations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; political instability, terrorism, insurrection or war; delays in obtaining governmental approvals, necessary permitting or in the completion of development or construction activities. The MOU with Tsingshan is non-binding and there is therefore no assurance that the strategic alliance with Tsingshan will result in any transaction or venture with Tsingshan. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, refer to RNC's filings with Canadian securities regulators available on SEDAR at Although RNC 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 to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this presentation and RNC disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws NI Compliance The technical information pertaining to the Dumont project feasibility study in this presentation is based on the news release titled Royal Nickel Confirms Economic and Technical Feasibility of Dumont Project Bankable Feasibility Study Delivers Over $1 Billion NPV 8% published on June 17, 2013 that describes the results of the Dumont project feasibility study and was prepared in accordance with Canadian regulatory requirements by, or under the supervision of, Paul Staples, P. Eng. of Ausenco Limited, Sébastien Bernier, P.Geo. of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. and David A. Warren, Eng. of Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, all of whom are independent Qualified Persons as set out in National Instrument Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI "). The Mineral Resource estimate set out in this presentation was classified according to the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (November 2010) by Sébastien Bernier, P. Geo (OGQ#1034, APGO#1847), Principal Consultant Resource Geology at SRK. The Mineral Reserve estimate set out in this presentation was classified according to the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (November 2010) by David A. Warren (OIQ ), Principal Consultant Mining at Snowden. All other technical information in this presentation has been prepared by or under the supervision of Alger St-Jean, P. Geo., Vice President, Exploration of RNC and Johnna Muinonen P. Eng., Vice President, Operations of RNC, each a Qualified Person as defined in NI The full Dumont feasibility study, prepared as an NI compliant technical report, is available under RNC s profile on SEDAR at All currency references in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise stated. TSX: RNX 1

3 Presentation Overview Project Summary Objective Dataset Assays Mineralogy Metallurgical Testing Geometallurgical Model Development Conclusions

4 Dumont Project Summary $US 1.1 billion NPV 8% at $9.00/lb nickel 1.1 billion tonne reserve at 0.27% nickel 33 year project life $1.2 billion initial capital investment for 52.5 ktpd mine/mill operation Structural Advantages Simple flowsheet Low strip ratio 1.1:1 Competitive electricity costs C$ 4.5 cents/kwh High grade concentrate 29% nickel, 43% recovery Non-acid generating waste rock and tailings All major support infrastructure in place (road, rail, power, water) Significant communities nearby with long history of resource development Dumont Project Location 3

5 Dumont Geology Layered mafic-ultramafic complex Primary nickel sulphide mineralization in a serpentinized dunite Iron-nickel alloy formed during serpentinization 4

6 Dumont Mineralogy Ni Minerals (Recoverable) Pentlandite (Fe, Ni) 9 S % Ni Heazlewoodite Ni 3 S 2 70% Ni Awaruite Ni 3 Fe 70% Ni 1 cm Matrix Components (Dunite) Serpentine (Mg,Fe,Ni) 3 SiO 5 (OH) 4 Brucite (Mg,Fe)(OH) 2 Magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ) +/- Olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni) 2 SiO 4 Plane light photo Matrix components are 95%+ of the rock. Any nickel hosted here is unrecoverable by flotation and magnetic separation 5

7 Geometallurgical Modelling Objective How can we use geochemistry to predict recovery? Traditional grade-recovery plots or sulfur-recovery plots cannot indicate recovery 6

8 Geometallurgical Modelling Objective The assay results are a combination of metallic nickel and silicate nickel Sulfur content of nickel minerals varies Serpentinization (alteration) is isochemical (Mg,Fe)olivine+H 2 O= (Mg,Fe)serpentine + magnetite + brucite How can we use geochemistry to predict recovery? 7

9 Geometallurgical Modelling: The Approach Understanding of mineralogical variability Map mineralogical variability into block model using QEMSCAN and geochemistry Obtain samples for metallurgical testwork that are representative of mineralogical variability Establish geometallurgical domains based on relationship between mineralogy and metallurgical testwork results (area of influence of metallurgical samples) Iterative process since the PEA (Preliminary Economic Assessment) Involves multidisciplinary team 8

10 Dumont Dataset Summary STUDY DRILLING EXPLOMIN TM PEA (Preliminary Economic Assessment or Scoping Study) PFS (Pre-Feasibility Study) Revised PFS (Revised Pre- Feasibility Study) FS (Feasibility Study) MET VARIABILITY SAMPLES 90,212 m ,838 m ,026 m 1, ,703 m 1,

11 Drilling: Geochemistry 90,212 metres PEA North 1 kilometre 10

12 113,838 metres PFS North 1 kilometre 11

13 161,026 metres Revised PFS North 1 kilometre 12

14 161,703 metres FS North 1 kilometre 13

15 Mineralogy: 189 EXPLOMIN TM Samples PEA North 1 kilometre Mineralogy by QEMSCAN (Quantitative Evaluation of Materials by Scanning Electron Microprobe) Combines SEM with EDX. 14

16 694 EXPLOMIN TM Samples PFS North 1 kilometre 15

17 1,097 EXPLOMIN TM samples Revised PFS North 1 kilometre 16

18 1,420 EXPLOMIN TM Samples FS North 1 kilometre 17

19 Metallurgical Variability Samples 105 samples from 15 holes No compositing Each sample sent for QEMSCAN, assay Standard metallurgical test procedure (STP) performed on each sample 18

20 32 Metallurgical Variability Samples PEA North 1 kilometre 19

21 70 Metallurgical variability samples PFS North 1 kilometre 20

22 83 Metallurgical variability samples Revised PFS North 1 kilometre 21

23 105 Metallurgical Variability Samples FS North 1 kilometre 22

24 Explomin Results: Variability of Sulphide Mineralogy *Defined by EXPLOMIN TM Mineralogy 23

25 Predicted Recovery Heazlewoodite Dominant Recovery =18.11+(0.0211*S)+( *Fe) Mixed Sulphide Predicted Recovery =9.73+(0.0222*S)+( *Fe) Pentlandite dominant group could not be regressed with high R 2 24

26 Bi-Modal Nickel Content in Pentlandite 25

27 Dumont Plan View Ni Content in Pentlandite 26

28 Fe Serpentine Model North Fe Serpentine Model kilometre High Fe-serpentine associated with low magnetite contents corresponding to a lower degree of serpentinization 27

29 Metallurgical Performance by Serpentinization Why do high Fe-serpentine samples result in lower recoveries? Presence of Fe-serpentine indicates increased nickel in silicates Presence of Fe-serpentine indicates low tenor pentlandite 28

30 Separation of High Fe-Serpentine Group Pentlandite Dominant Recovery= (0.0055*S)+(0.0111*Ca) High Fe-serpentine Recovery= (38.9*S/Ni)+(0.0143*Cr) 29

31 Domain Process Metallurgical domaining follows serpentinization process Concentrate grade follows serpentinization process 30

32 Predicted Domain Process Heazlewoodite Rougher Recovery = (0.0211*S)+( *Fe) Mixed Sulphide Rougher Recovery = 9.73+(0.0222*S)+( *Fe) Pentlandite Dominant Rougher Recovery = (0.0055*S)+(0.0111*Ca) High Fe-serpentine Rougher Recovery = (38.9*S/Ni)+(0.0143*Cr) S Fe Ca S/Ni Cr sulphides present magnetite present related to fluid chemistry during serpentinization process relates to nickel in sulphides primary sill feature Actual Results 31

33 Domains Applied to Block Model 1. Drill hole database populates block model with geochemistry 2. EXPLOMIN TM database populates block model with mineralogy 32

34 Recovery Applied to Block Model Recovery Model NSR Model 3. Apply recovery equation to each block in its respective domain 33

35 Conclusions Mineral deportment drives metallurgical performance 3 recoverable Ni minerals Variable nickel in silicates Domaining is an iterative process Gather Data Review Model Gather More Data Repeat Look for outliers within domains Data that need explaining May lead to modifying the domains Multidisciplinary team Geologists working with metallurgists 34

36 Acknowledgements Royal Nickel Johnna Muinonen, John Korczak, Alger St-Jean, Tyler Mitchelson SGS Lakefield Stephanie Downing and Kathryn Sheridan 35

37 Thank you