May 2017
Van Dyke Copper ProjectArizona, USA
May 2017
Van Dyke Project (In-Situ Leach)
• Pre-tax NPV @ 8% & 5% ranged
from C$295 to C$390 million (i.e.
C$0.69 to C$0.92/share)
• IRR of 35.5% pre-tax
• 11 year LOM
• 60 Mlb Cu production Y1-Y6
• Direct Cash Cost of US$0.60/lb
and AISC of US$1.44/lb
• Preliminary Feasibility Study
recommended
• Permitting Process UnderwayThe above information was derived from the preliminary economic
assessment (‘PEA’). The PEA is preliminary in nature, it includes
inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative
geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them
that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and
there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. The basis for the
PEA, qualifications and assumptions made by the qualified persons
(‘QP’) are based on the “Preliminary Economic Assessment
Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project”, dated Dec. 18,
2015, J. Gray, P.Eng., et al as QPs. The PEA is the first current
engineering technical study undertaken on the Van Dyke copper
project.
2
Conversion of NPV to $C based on FOREX of 1.3957 as of December 18, 2015.
IRR = Internal Rate of Return; LOM = Life of Mine; AISC = All In Sustaining Cost; NPV = Net Present Value
3
PEA Highlights
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al
as Qualified Persons;.
IRR = Internal Rate of Return; LOM = Life of Mine; AISC = All In Sustaining Cost; NPV = Net Present Value
• The NI 43-101 Technical Report confirmed:
Positive IRR of 35.5% pre-tax and 27.9% post tax
11 year LOM
60 million lbs annualized copper production Y1-Y6
Direct Cash Cost of $US0.60/lb and AISC of $US1.44/lb
Project economics most sensitive to copper price and
recovery
Significant upside potential
• Before Tax NPV @ 8% & 5% discount rates ranged from
$US213.1 to $US282.9 million (i.e. $US0.52 to $US0.69/share)
4
NPV Project Sensitivity
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al as
Qualified Persons;.
IRR Project Sensitivity
5
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al
as Qualified Persons;.
Economic Enhancements
6
• Drilling to upgrade Inferred Mineral Resource and
expand size of the deposit
• ISL pilot test program to investigate:
metal recoveries
hydraulic conductivity
well field design and
extent of rock stimulation required, if any
• Opportunities to lower capital, sustaining and
operating costs
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et all
as Qualified Persons.
Copper Oxide Mineralization
7
Deposit Model
8
Resource Grade Blocks
9
3D Model Historical Grades
10
800m
1,000m
Access and Underground Well Field
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al
as Qualified Persons.
11
Soluble Copper After 120 day Leach Test
12
Based on Preliminary In-Situ Leach Study Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated November 2014 prepared by SGS E&S Engineering Solutions Inc ;.
Van Dyke – Proposed Production Plan
13
Proposed SX-EW Copper Recovery
14
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al
as Qualified Persons.
Proposed Infrastructure
15
PEA Economic Summary
16
Van Dyke - Economic Summary Unit Base Case
Life of Mine (LOM) years 11
Copper Cathode Sold Million lbs 456.9
Copper Price $US/lb 3.00
Gross Revenue $ 1,370,000,000
Royalties $ 31,500,000
Operating Costs (includes LOM sustaining costs) $ 619,800,000
LOM Direct Operating Cost ($/pound recovered copper) $/lb copper 0.60
Initial Capital Costs (includes 30% Contingency) $ 204,400,000
NPV & IRR (Base Case)
Discount Rate % 8%
Pre-Tax Net Free Cash Flow $ 453,100,000
Pre-Tax NPV $ 213,100,000
Pre-Tax IRR % 35.5
Payback Years 2.3
Post-Tax Net Free Cash Flow $ 342,200,000
Post-Tax NPV $ 149,500,000
Post-Tax IRR % 27.90%
Payback years 2.9
Estimated Capital Costs
17
Code Description Cost $(000's)
A General Site $ 10,000
B ISL Well Field $ 3,200
C Underground Mining $ 32,300
D Processing $ 49,100
E Buildings and Facilities $ 9,800
PP Initial Operating Costs* $ 10,200
Total Direct Costs $ 114,600
X Indirect Costs $ 36,900
Y Owner's Costs $ 10,400
Total Indirect Costs $ 47,300
Total Direct and Indirect Costs $ 161,900
Z Contingency $ 42,500
Total Capital Cost $ 204,400
Estimated Operating Costs
Operating CostsLOM Cost
($000's)LOM Unit Cost
ISL Well Field Acid Costs $25,000 $0.06
ISL Well Field Monitoring Costs $2,000 $0.01
ISL Well Field Electrical (Pumping) Costs $19,500 $0.04
ISL Well Field Maintenance Costs $19,200 $0.04
SX-EWG Processing Costs $123,400 $0.27
G&A, Offsite Costs $77,700 $0.17
Water Treatment Costs $6,600 $0.01
Total Operating Costs $273,400 $0.60
18
Estimated Unit Costs
19
Cash Cost Category Unit Cost ($US/lb)
Direct Cash Cost 0.60
Royalties and Severance Tax 0.08
Initial Sustaining Costs 0.15
Life of Mine Sustaining Costs 0.61
All In Sustaining Cost (AISC) 1.44
Proposed Development Plan
20
Estimate Cost Pre-Feasibility Study
21
Required Component for PFS Estimated Cost ($000)Drilling 4,675
Resource Model 300
Pilot Test 8,496
Pilot Permitting 1,000
Metallurgical Testing 500
Geotechnical Testing 200
Water Management 200
Pre-Feasibility Engineering Report 1,200
Total $US16,571
Arizona ISL Peer Comparables
ISL Advantages
Lower Environmental Impact Less surface disturbance Fewer permits required
22
(1) News Release Taseko Mines Limited, January 16, 2017
(2) Feasibility Study dated January 16, 2017, R. Zimmerman, P.G., et al as Qualified Persons
(3) Preliminary Economic Assessment dated December 18, 2015, prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray, P.Eng., et al as Qualified Persons
*Pre-Tax NPV discount rate for the Florence and Gunnison projects is 7.5%, 8.0% for Van Dyke.
IN-SITU RECOVERY COMPARABLES
DEPOSIT
TOTAL
COPPER
TOTAL
COPPERRECOVERY
ANNUAL
PRODUCTIONMINE LIFE
INITIAL
CAPITALPAYBACK
PRE-TAX
NPV*
TOTAL COST
COPPER
(BILLION LBS) GRADE (%) ESTIMATED (%) (MILLION LBS) YEARS ($US MILLION) YEARS ($US MILLION) $US/LB
FLORENCE (1) 2.84 0.33 71 81 21 208.0 2.4 727.0 1.10
GUNNISON (2) 6.30 0.29 48 125 20 311.1 6.5 1,173.0 0.99
VAN DYKE (3) 1.33 0.33 68 60 11 204.4 2.3 213 0.71
ZoneCut-off -
TCu(%)tonnes TCu (%) ASCu (%) ASCu/TCu
Total Cu
(Mlb)
Oxide Cu
(Mlb)
Oxide 0.05 113,143,000 0.434 0.284 0.676 1,083 704
Mixed 0.05 69,918,000 0.167 0.060 0.403 245 93
Total 0.05 183,061,000 0.332 0.198 0.598 1,328 797
Based on Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Van Dyke Copper Project", dated December 18, 2015 prepared by Moose Mountain Technical Services, J, Gray P.Eng., et al as
Qualified Persons;.
Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Project Summary
23
• Low Cost Copper Production
• Positive Project Economics
• Excellent Infrastructure
• Considerable Potential to Expand Resource Base
• Significant increase in copper recovery possible (increase
annual copper production)
• Project Economics most sensitive to copper price and % copper
recovery
• Low Environmental and Social Impact
Contact Information
24
All statements included herein, including without limitation, statements regarding potential mineralization and exploration results, production timing and cost estimates and timing of future plans,
actions, objectives and achievements of Copper Fox Metals Inc. are "forward-looking statements" as such term is used in applicable Canadian and US securities laws. These statements relate to
analyses and other information that are based on forecasts of future results, estimates of amounts not yet determinable and assumptions of management at the time the statements were made.
Actual results may differ materially from those currently anticipated. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements
contained herein are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. Elmer B. Stewart, MSc. P. Geol., President of Copper Fox, is the Company’s nominated Qualified Person pursuant to Section
3.1 of National Instrument 43-101, and has reviewed and approved the technical information disclosed herein.
Corporate Office Investor Relations
Suite 650, 340 – 12 Ave SW, 1-844-464-2820
Calgary, AB T2R 1L5 | 1-403-264-2820 [email protected]
Desert Fox Office
3445 E Highway 60,
Miami, AZ 85539-1353