Nickel for the 21st Century - September - FPX Nickel
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nickel for the
21st Century
September
2020
Forward Looking Statements
This presentation contains certain “forward looking statements” within the meaning of “forward looking information” under
applicable Canadian securities laws, concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of FPX Nickel
Corp. (“FPX Nickel”, “the Company”). Forward looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the
future price of nickel and certain other commodities, the estimation of mineral reserves and resources, the realization of mineral
resource estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, success of
exploration activities, permitting time lines, requirements for additional capital, government regulation of mining operations, and
environmental risks. Forward looking statements are statements that are not historical fact. Forward looking statements can be
identified by the use of forward looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects”, “is expected”, “budget”, “target”, “targeted”,
“scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “believes” or variations of such words and phrases or statements
that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Forward looking
statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management that, while considered reasonable,
are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies. Readers are cautioned
that such forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual
results, level of activity, performance or achievements of FPX Nickel to be materially different from the Company’s estimated
future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by those forward looking statements, and the forward looking
statements are not guarantees of future performance. These risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to:
significant depreciation of metals prices; changes in equity ownership; accidents and other risks associated with mining,
exploration, development and production operations; unanticipated geological factors; possible variations in mineral resources
and reserves, grade or recovery rates; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing on acceptable terms, or in the
completion of development activities and other risks of the mining industry. Although FPX Nickel has attempted to identify
important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward looking statements, there
may be other factors that cause actual results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurances that
such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in
such statements. FPX Nickel does not undertake to update or revise any forward looking statements that are included in this
document, except as required by applicable securities laws.
Technical Information
All technical information in the corporate presentation was prepared under the supervision of FPX Nickel’s Chairman, Dr. Peter
Bradshaw, P. Eng., a qualified person consistent with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects (“NI 43-101”).
2
FPX’s Decar Nickel District hosts the Baptiste Project – one
of the world’s best development-stage nickel projects
● Large Resource, Long Life ● Low Projected Costs ● High-Value, Strategic Nickel Product
➢ Projected to be among world’s 10 ➢ Potential for lowest quartile ➢ High-grade nickel product (63% Ni)
largest nickel mines by annual output operating costs (US$2.74/lb Ni) with low impurities
➢ 35-year mine life with significant ➢ Low capital intensity compared to ➢ Suited for direct feed to stainless
expansion potential recent global nickel mines steel and/or for EV battery market
● Excellent Location ● Modest Enviro Footprint ● Conventional Mining & Processing
➢ Located 80 km west of Mt. Milligan ➢ Non acid-generating host rock ➢ Bulk-tonnage, open-pit mining with
mine (first production 2013) in BC ➢ No toxic heavy-metal leaching low strip ratio (0.40:1 life-of-mine)
➢ Supportive local relationships ➢ Benign tailings with significant ➢ Magnetic separation followed by
➢ Close proximity to power and rail potential for CO2 capture flotation recovery
➢ Zero-carbon footprint based on ➢ Production of high-grade Ni product
CO2 sequestration in tailings and by-product iron concentrate
3
The Case for Nickel
Global Refined Nickel Supply/Demand and Price
250 $20.00
Forecast
200 $18.00
$16.00
150
$14.00
100
000s Tonnes
$12.00
US$ /lb
50
$10.00
-
$8.00
(50)
$6.00
(100) $4.00
(150) $2.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Implied Surplus/Deficit '000 tonnes (LS) Nominal LME Cash Prices US$/lb (RS)
Data Source: Scotiabank April 2020 Commodity Price Outlook
4
FPX – Leverage to the Nickel Price
January 2016 to July 2020 – FPX vs. nickel performance
JJNTF = Bloomberg Nickel Sub-index Total Return, a single commodity sub-index composed
of futures contracts on nickel 5
Decar Nickel District – Ownership History
2010 to 2013
Cliffs November
expenditures 2015
2008 to 2009 of US $22 FPX Nickel re-
Surface million toward establishes
sampling and completion of 100% project
initial PEA in 2013, ownership via
discovery by establishing payment of US
FPX Nickel 60% project $4.75 million
ownership to Cliffs
November August 2014
2009 Cliffs
Execution of announces
option intention to
agreement divest all non-
with Cliffs core assets,
Natural including
Resources Inc. 60% Decar
interest
6
Decar Nickel District
Excellent Location – Central British Columbia
● Road accessible
● 5 km to rail line
● 100 km to hydro-
power grid
Blackwater Au Project: Receipt of
federal & provincial environment
assessment certificates in 2019
7
Decar Nickel District (245 km2)
Van Target
• Drill-ready target
• Surface samples up to
0.16% DTR Ni 1
B Target
• Exploration target ~3 km2
• 1 hole drilled, 1.7 km from Sid
• 263m of 0.132% DTR Ni 1
• Open along strike and at depth
Sid Target Baptiste Deposit (2020 PEA)
• 2 holes drilled, 320m apart • 30,000 metres drilled
• 282m of 0.143% Ni in alloy 2
• LOM average head grade 0.118% DTR Ni1,3
• 163m of 0.126% Ni in alloy 2
• Southeast Zone expanded in 2017 drilling
• Open along strike and at depth
(see page 9 of this presentation)
1. DTR = Davis Tube
Recoverable Nickel
2. “Nickel in alloy” selective
assay method
3. Per 2013 PEA (see page 15
of this presentation)
8
Decar Nickel District
Exploration Upside Van Target
B Target
Sid Target
Baptiste Deposit
9
Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit
● Southeast Zone: Higher grade near-surface zone measuring 1,000 metres east-west by up to
600 metres wide
● Deposit remains open to southeast, northwest & northeast and at depth 10Baptiste Deposit – 2017 Stepout Drilling
Intersections DTR Nickel Comments
Hole From To Length (%)
2010-1 3 321 318 0.145
2010-7 3 71 68 0.13
2011-5 45 303 258 0.145
2011-7 51 304 253 0.163
2012-36 31.1 600.1 563 0.156 Excludes 5.7 m dike
2012-37 64 600 494.9 0.147 Excludes 8.2 m and 33m dike
sequence
2012-39 38.2 594.1 552.7 0.153 Excludes 3.1 m dike
2012-40 33 588 549.9 0.153 Excludes 5.1 m dike
2012-43 33.2 600 508.1 0.151 Excludes 22m, 9m, 14.2 m, 3.2m
& 9.9 m dikes and minor wall
rock
2012-46 28.6 600.1 487.4 0.15 Excludes 20m, 8m, 14m, 12m &
11m dikes and < 0.1% DTR Ni
intervals
2012-50 34.5 229 194.5 0.147
2012-55 106 569.7 456.2 0.158 Excludes 7.4 m dike
2017-63 73 390 317 0.121 Excludes 4 m, 5 m, 25 m, 2 m,
1m, 1m and 1m dikes
2017-65 29 351 322 0.131 Excludes 1 m, 8 m, 1m and 2 m
dikes
2017-67 55 349 294 0.151 Excludes 9 m and 1m dikes
2017-68 26 172 146 0.128 Excludes 1.2 m dike
Southeast Zone (shaded area on map)
● Measures 1,000 metres east-west by up to 600 metres wide
● High-grade, near-surface potential for starter pit
● Table above shows average grade for holes clustered in Southeast Zone
11Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit
2020 Mineral Resource Estimate
- 2020 mineral resource model incorporates the results of stepout drilling
completed in 2017 in the Southeast Zone
- Significantly improves Baptiste mine plan by incorporating near-surface
tonnage in a starter pit to the southeast of the 2013 PEA pit 12Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit
Long Section View (image location below)
- 2020 mineral resource model incorporates the results of
stepout drilling completed in 2017 in the Southeast Zone
- Potential to improve Baptiste mine plan by incorporating
near-surface tonnage in a starter pit to the southeast of the
2013 PEA pit
13Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Deposit
2020 Mineral Resource Estimate
* Davis Tube Recoverable Nickel”; 0.06%
cut-off
Davis Tube Recoverable (“DTR”) Ni Content
Category Tonnes (000’s) 2020 estimate dated September 9, 2020
% Ni Tonnes Ni Pounds Ni (000’s)
by GeoSim Services Inc. Mineral
Indicated 1,995,873 0.122 2,434,965 5,368,173 resources reported in relation to a
conceptual pit shell, at a cut-off grade of
Inferred 592,890 0.114 675,895 1,490,092 0.06% DTR Ni inside a resource shell
based on a nickel price of US$6.35/lb.
Cut-off Indicated Inferred 2020 resource estimate report will be filed
under the Company’s SEDAR profile
Grade (DTR within 45 days of September 4, 2020
DTR Ni
Ni %) Tonnes (000’s) Tonnes (000’s) DTR Ni Grade (%)
Grade (%) Mineral resources which are not mineral
reserves do not have demonstrated
0.02 2,076,969 0.119 750,633 0.098 economic viability. Inferred mineral
0.04 2,055,578 0.12 659,900 0.107 resources have a high degree of
uncertainty as to their existence, and a
0.06 1,995,873 0.122 592,890 0.114 great uncertainty as to their economic and
0.08 1,871,412 0.126 499,993 0.122 legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that
all or any part of an Inferred Resource will
0.1 1,617,364 0.131 399,801 0.13 ever be upgraded to a higher category.
Comparing 2020 vs. 2013 Mineral Resource Estimate (see notes above)
- More refined model than previous iteration with new robust geological model
- Increased level of confidence (72% increase in indicated tonnage)
- Similar total tonnage and grade using significantly lower Ni price assumption
(US$6.35/lb in 2020 model vs. US$9.39/lb in 2013 model)
14Decar Nickel District – Van Target
• Van Target is
drill ready and
measures ~3
km2 based on
54 bedrock
surface
samples
• ~35% of
surface
samples in Van
Target area
grading over
0.12% DTR Ni
• Van Target
located 6 km
north of
Baptiste and
remains open
to the east
• Baptiste Target
was ~2 km2
prior to initial
drilling in 2010
15Decar Nickel District – Mineralization
Awaruite – Naturally-Occurring Nickel-Iron Alloy
● Targets are large-scale and near-surface
● Disseminated nickel mineralization
● Consistent grade and grain size distribution
● Highly magnetic
● Very dense (8.2 gm/cc)
● No sulphur in mineral or host rock
Formula Nickel % Iron % Sulphur %
Ni3Fe 75 25 0
16Decar Nickel District – Conventional Metallurgy
Simple, two-stage
process
➢ Magnetic separation
➢ Conventional flotation
High recoveries, high
grade products
➢ 85% recovery of DTR Ni
grade
➢ Ni concentrate grading
63% Ni and 30% Fe
➢ By-product iron ore
concentrate grading 60-
65% Fe
Clean process, clean
products
➢ Non acid-generating host
rock
➢ Products have high metal
content, low impurities
Parameter 2013 PEA 2020 PEA
(Magnetics + Gravity) (Magnetics + Flotation)
Ni Concentrate Grade 13.5% Ni 63% Ni
DTR Ni Recovery 82% 85%
Iron Ore Concentrate Grade N/A 60-65% Fe 17An Integrated Nickel Operation for the 21st Century
Premium Nickel Product Suitable for Stainless Steel or Electric Vehicle Battery Markets
Concentrate (63% Ni, 30% Fe, 1% Co)
Conventional briquetting Leaching under moderate conditions
Stainless Steel Market – EV Battery Market –
Ferronickel Briquette Ni-Co Solution
● Direct sale to stainless ● Chemical feed for Ni
steel producers sulphate & Co sulphate
● Comparable to FeNi ● High-content Ni and Co
products sold by Vale, etc. with minimal impurities
● Bypass Ni smelters to ● Conventional process for
achieve premium pricing production of sulphates
18Baptiste Nickel Briquette – Premium Product
FPX FeNi briquette to yield high payability given similarity to NPI & Ferronickel
Global Nickel Products -- Ni Content & Payability (% LME Nickel Price)
Sulphide Concentrate (~15% Ni)
Baptiste FeNi Briquette (~63% Ni, ~30% Fe)
Ferronickel (~30% Ni, ~70% Fe)
Class 1 (>99% Ni, LME Grade)
NPI (~12% Ni, ~85% Fe)
including Chinese VAT
Nickel sulphate (~22% Ni)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Nickel Content Nickel Payability (% LME Ni Price, 100% Ni content)
“NPI gets similar or better payability compared to many other nickel products. The superior payability is achieved
through its suitability for stainless steel production. This is due to the product’s high iron content and efficiencies
in the stainless steel production process as an ideal feed without the need for further treatment.” (Canaccord)
Source: Canaccord Genuity, Metal Bulletin, FPX market test 19Decar Ni Concentrate Feed for EV Battery Market
➢ Leach testing confirms the potential for the production of nickel sulphate and cobalt sulphate from Baptiste awaruite ore
➢ Simple 3-stage process, with potential to be more efficient than the typical 5-stage processes required to convert sulphide
and laterite ores into nickel sulphate (see figure below)
➢ Rapid nickel extraction (over 98% extraction in under 60 minutes) achieved under mild pressure leaching conditions with
significantly lower sizing, power consumption, pressure and temperature requirements than typical HPAL operations
FPX Nickel - Nickel-Iron Alloy
High
Nickel Concentration
Hydrometallurgy
Awaruite Concentrate Nickel/Cobalt
(Awaruite)
Mineralization (~63% Ni) Solution NiSO4
● ● ● ●
Purification /
Pressure
Solvent
Leaching
Beneficiation Extraction
(Current
(Future
Testing)
Testing)
High High
Pyrometallurgy
Nickel Sulphide
Nickel Low Nickel Nickel Concentration
Sulphide Ore Concentrate Matte Matte Nickel Solution NiSO4
● ● ● ● ● ●
Purification
Beneficiation Smelting Converter Dissolution / Solvent
Extraction
Low High
Concentration Mixed Concentration
Hydrometallurgy
Nickel Laterite
Nickel/Cobalt Sulfide Nickel/Cobalt
Laterite Ore Leach Slurry Solution Product Solution NiSO4
● ● ● ● ● ●
Counter- Purification
HPAL current Precipitation Dissolution / Solvent
decantation Extraction
20Baptiste Project – 2020 PEA
Confirms Baptiste as one of the world’s most robust large-scale nickel projects
Results
Pre-tax NPV (8% discount rate) $2.93 billion
Pre-tax IRR 22.5%
Payback period (pre-tax) 3.5 years
After-tax NPV (8% discount rate) $1.72 billion
After-tax IRR 18.3%
Payback period (after-tax) 4.0 years
Net cash flows (after-tax, undiscounted) $8.73 billion
C1 operating costs 1 $2.74/lb nickel
AISC costs 2 $3.12/lb nickel
Assumptions
Processing throughput 120,000 tonnes per day
Mine life 35 years
Life-of-mine stripping ratio (tonnes:tonnes) 0.40:1
Life-of-mine average annual nickel production 99 million lbs.
Nickel price 3 $7.75/lb
Baptiste product payability (% of nickel price) 98%
Pre-production capital expenditures $1.67 billion
Sustaining capital expenditures $1.11 billion
Exchange rate 0.76 US$/C$
All figures in US$
1. C1 operating costs are the costs of mining, milling and concentrating, on-site administration and general expenses, metal product
treatment charges, and freight and marketing costs less the net value of by-product credits, if any. These are expressed on the basis of
per unit nickel content of the sold product.
2. AISC of all-in sustaining costs comprise the sum of C1 costs, sustaining capital, royalties and closure expenses. These are expressed on
the basis of per unit nickel content of the sold product.
3. Nickel price based on the average of six long-term analyst forecast prices.
21Baptiste Project – 2020 PEA
Summary of capital cost expenditures (US$)
Pre-Production In-Pit Deposition Sustaining Total LOM
Category
M$ M$ M$ M$
Direct Costs
Mobile Equipment $155.1 $0.0 $353.5 $508.6
TSF $137.9 $14.5 $534.3 $686.6
Mine and TSF Site Preparation $95.5 $0.0 $90.4 $185.9
Mineral Processing $610.0 $88.4 $18.2 $716.6
Off-Site Infrastructure $64.4 $0.0 $0.0 $64.4
On-Site Infrastructure $66.4 $0.0 $6.8 $73.2
Total Direct Costs $1 129.3 $102.9 $1 003.2 $2 235.4
Indirect Costs $291.8 $0.0 $8.2 $300.1
Contingency $253.7 $0.0 $0.0 $253.7
TOTAL PROJECT CAPITAL COST $1 674.8 $102.9 $1 011.5 $2 789.2
Note: In-pit Deposition figures refer to the capital expenditures in Year 22 relating to the transition to
finer primary grind of 170 microns and associated switch to in-pit tailings deposition
The PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too
speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them
to be categorized as mineral reserves. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have
demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that the conclusions or results as reported in
the PEA will be realized.
The effective date of the 2020 PEA is September 9, 2020 and a technical report relating to the PEA
will be filed on SEDAR within 45 days. 22Baptiste Project – 2020 PEA
Operating expenditures (US$/t milled)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Estimated Average LOM OPEX
Yr 1 - 21 Yr 22 - 35 LOM
Mining $2.28 $2.66 $2.43
Mineral Processing $2.71 $2.91 $2.79
Briquette Transport $0.19 $0.18 $0.19
Rail Terminal and Access Road $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
General Site Services $0.62 $0.62 $0.62
General and Administration $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
TOTAL Opex $6.09 $6.66 $6.32
Operating expenditures (US$/lb Ni)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Total
Yr 1 - 21 Yr 22 - 35 LOM
C1 costs ($/lb Ni) $2.61 $2.94 $2.74
AISC cost ($/lb Ni) $3.13 $3.11 $3.12
1. C1 operating costs are the costs of mining, milling and concentrating, on-site administration and general
expenses, metal product treatment charges, and freight and marketing costs less the net value of by-product
credits, if any. These are expressed on the basis of per unit nickel content of the sold product.
2. AISC of all-in sustaining costs comprise the sum of C1 costs, sustaining capital, royalties and closure expenses.
These are expressed on the basis of per unit nickel content of the sold product. 23Baptiste Project – 2020 PEA
Confirms potential for lowest quartile position on nickel cost curve
Global Nickel Market Cost Curve
Baptiste C1
$2.74/lb
Source: Wood Mackenzie, RBC Capital Markets, spot price on August 11, 2020
All figures in US$
C1 operating costs are the costs of mining, milling and concentrating, on-site administration and general expenses, metal
product treatment charges, and freight and marketing costs less the net value of by-product credits, if any. These are expressed
on the basis of per unit nickel content of the sold product. 24Overview of Global Base Metals Projects
Decar’s Baptiste Project ranks highly among global base metals projects
Strategic Value Index - Ratio of Mine Life to Payback (After-Tax)
- 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Taylor, USA, South 32, Zn 18.1
Alpala, Ecuador, Solgold, Cu 12.9
Kamoa-Kakula, DRC, Ivanhoe, Cu 12.8
Timok, Serbia, Zijin, Cu 11.1
Los Azules, Argentina, McEwen, Cu 10.0
Baptiste, Canada, FPX, Ni (2020 PEA) 8.8 35-year mine life,
4-year payback
Quellaveco, Peru, Anglo American, Cu 7.5
Taca Taca, Argentina, First Quantum, Cu 7.4
Casino, Canada, Western, Cu 7.3
Ayawilca, Peru, Tinka, Zn 6.8
Araguaia, Brazil, Horizonte, Ni 6.7
Josemaria, Argentina, NGex, Cu 5.9
Sunrise, Australia, Cleanteq, Ni 5.8
Cardiac Creek, Canada, ZincX, Zn 5.6
Arctic, USA, Trilogy, Cu 5.3
Kun-Manie, Russia, Amur, Ni 5.0
Goongarrie, Australia, Ardea, Ni 4.9
Macmillan Pass, Canada, Fireweed, Zn 4.5
QB2, Chile, Teck, Cu 4.3
West Musgrave, Australia, Oz Minerals, Ni 4.3
Filo del Sol, Chile/Argentina, Filo, Cu 4.1
Dumont, Canada, RNC, Ni 3.8
Rosemont, USA, Hudbay, Cu 3.7
Sconi, Australia, Australian Mines, Ni 3.5
Ann Mason, USA, Hudbay, Cu 3.0
RED = copper BLUE = zinc GREEN = nickel
25
Source: company filingsDecar Nickel District – Baptiste Project
Low initial capital intensity compared to other recent large nickel mines
US$ capital cost per tonne annual Ni production $92,000
$83,000
$79,000
$73,000
$60,000
$56,000
$53,000
$37,000
Baptiste (Canada) Barro Alto Ramu Onca Puma Goro Ravensthorpe Koniambo Ambatovy
2020 PEA Estimate (Brazil - 2011) (Papua New Guinea - (Brazil - 2011l) (New Caledonia - (Australia - 2011) (New Caledonia - (Madagascar - 2013)
US$1.7 billion US$1.9 billion 2012) US$3.2 billion 2010) US$3 billion 2013) US$5.5 billion
US$1.8 billion US$6 billion US$5.5 billion
Source: company filings 26Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Project
Low capital and operating cost compared to other nickel mines
Selected HPAL & Caron Ni Project Costs, Adjusted to $2017
Basis
16,000 Yabulu (Queensland -
Australia)
Ramu (MCC - Papua New
Guinea)
14,000
US$/tonne Operating Cost
12,000 VNC (Vale - New Caledonia)
Tocantins (Votorantim -
Brazil)
Ambatovy (Sherritt -
Madagascar)
10,000 Weighted Avg. (ex-Baptiste)
Murrin Murrin (Glencore -
Australia)
8,000
Rio Tuba (Nickel Asia -
Philippines)
Moa Nickel (Sherritt - Cuba)
6,000
Baptiste Project (FPX
Nickel - Canada)
4,000
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000
Source: Wood Mackenzie, BMO, Decar 2013 PEA for capital cost
and on-site operating cost assuming C$1 = US$0.97
US$/tonne Annual Nickel Capacity Capital Cost
27Global Base Metals Projects – P/NAV
FPX Nickel has significant potential upside to re-rate to the peer group on P/NAV basis
P/NAV - Base Metals
Pebble, USA, Northern Dynasty, Cu 0.34
Tamarack, USA, Talon Metals, Ni 0.34
Araguaia, Brazil, Horizonte Minerals, Ni 0.33
Arctic, USA, Trilogy, Cu 0.24
Filo del Sol, Chile/Argentina, Filo, Cu 0.20
Prairie Creek, Canada, Norzinc, Zn 0.19
Kwanika, Canada, Serengeti, Cu 0.16
Alpala, Ecuador, Solgold, Cu 0.15
Ayawilca, Peru, Tinka, Zn 0.13
Sunrise, Australia, Clean TeQ Holdings, Ni 0.13
Casino, Canada, Western, Cu 0.11
Macmillan Pass, Canada, Fireweed, Zn 0.09
Josemaria, Argentina, Josemaria, Cu 0.08
Sconi, Australia, Australian Mines, Ni 0.07
Baptiste, Canada, FPX Nickel, Ni 0.06
Turnagain, Canada, GIGA Metals, Ni 0.06
Kun-Manie, Russia, Amur Minerals, Ni 0.05
Cardiac Creek, Canada, ZincX, Zn 0.04
- 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
RED = copper BLUE = zinc GREEN = nickel
28
Source: company filingsBaptiste – A Potential Carbon Neutral Mine
According to Dr. Ian Power (Professor, Trent University), Baptiste
“offers a tremendous opportunity for developing a carbon-neutral mine”
- Baptiste mill waste (brucite) naturally sequesters CO2
- Generates a possible carbon benefit under the B.C. carbon tax
- Binding and cementation of tailings has numerous co-benefits that
could influence mine design, operations, and closure
Source: Vanderzee, et al “Carbon Sequestration in Mine Waste”, 2019 29Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Project
Ticking all the boxes
Near-Surface Consistent Grade Conventional Open Pit
• Consistent grade with low Mining
variability • Bulk mining operation
• Higher-grade near-surface zone • Truck and shovel
for starter pit • Low strip ratio 0.40:1
Large Resource with Conventional Metallurgy
Expansion Potential
• Baptiste Deposit can be among
• Magnetic separation followed
world’s top-10 mines by annual by flotation recovery
Ni output • Concentrate or briquette
• 35-year mine life with product with 63% Ni, 30% Fe
significant expansion potential • Potential production of by-
at Baptiste and surrounding product iron ore concentrate
targets (Van, Sid & B Targets)
30Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Project
Ticking all the boxes
Low Capital Intensity High-Value Nickel Product
• Low capital intensity compared • High-grade Ni product (63% Ni)
to recent Ni projects with low impurities
• ~US$37K/t annual Ni output • Suited for direct feed to
(2020 PEA) stainless steel or for EV market
Low Operating Costs Modest Enviro Footprint
• 2020 PEA shows potential for • Non-acid generating host rock
lowest quartile operating costs and tailings
• C1 operating costs of • No toxic heave-metal leaching
US$2.74/lb Ni (2020 PEA) • Benign tailings with significant
potential for C02 capture
31Decar Nickel District – Baptiste Project
Ticking all the boxes
Excellent Jurisdiction Excellent Local Relationships
• British Columbia rated 2nd most • Signed MOU and strong
attractive mining jurisdiction in relationship with First Nations
world by Mining Journal (2017) • Local community involvement
and support for the project
• Decar located 80 km west of
Mt. Milligan open-pit Cu-Au
mine (first production 2013)
Proximity to Infrastructure Opportunity for Innovation
• Decar is road accessible by • Ongoing university research to
main-line forestry roads assess potential of Decar
tailings for sequestration of CO2
• 5 km to rail line and 100 km to
• According to Dr. Ian Power
provincial power gride (Professor, Trent University),
“the Baptiste deposit offers a
tremendous opportunity for
developing a carbon-neutral
mine” 32Share Structure & Financial Position
Recent Price: C$ 0.70/share
FPX (TSX-V): 2016-2020 Price Chart
(C$/share)
➢ 52-week Range: C$ 0.11 – C$ 0.75
➢ Market Capitalization: ~ C$ 114 million
➢ Average daily volume: ~ 200,000 shares
Shares Outstanding
➢ Basic: 163.3 million
➢ Fully Diluted: 178.9 million
➢ No warrants
Ownership – Issued & Outstanding
➢ Management: 18.9% (24.6% fully diluted)
➢ Other large (> 2%) shareholders: 35.0%
Financial position
➢ ~ C$1,500,000 cash on-hand
➢ ~ C$1,350,000 working capital
33Management
● Martin Turenne – President, CEO & Director
➢ Executive with over 17 years’ experience in the commodities industry, including over 7 years in the
mining industry
➢ Formerly CFO of FPX Nickel from 2012 to 2015
➢ Formerly with KPMG LLP and Methanex Corporation
➢ Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA, CA)
● Chris Mitchell – CFO & Corporate Secretary
➢ Metallurgist and business consultant with 40-plus years experience in the minerals industry, including
senior executive positions with Viceroy Resources and Orvana Minerals; former CFO for Canterra
Minerals, Silver Quest Resources and Independence Gold
➢ Professional Engineer and Life Member, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of
B.C.
➢ Director, Endurance Gold, former director of Orvana Minerals and Matrix Metals (AIM)
● Trevor Rabb – Consulting Geologist
➢ Professional Geologist with over 10 years’ experience in mineral exploration, including over 5 years
specializing in nickel-iron alloy deposits
➢ Formerly FPX Nickel’s Senior Geologist and Vice-President Exploration from 2010 to 2016
➢ Key player in exploration discoveries for FPX Nickel’s Decar, Mich, Wale and Klow properties
34Board of Directors
● Peter Bradshaw – Chairman
➢ Exploration geologist with 45 years experience with Barringer Research, Placer Dome and Orvana Minerals
➢ Key Discoveries/projects: Porgera, Kidston, Misima, Omai, Decar
➢ Member, Canadian Mining Hall of Fame
● Stuart Harshaw
➢ Former Vale nickel senior executive with 30 years’ experience in nickel mining and marketing operations
➢ Former VP Operations at Vale’s Sudbury complex and former VP Operations and Marketing for Vale Asia Pacific
➢ Deep experience in mine development and operation and marketing of nickel products to stainless steel and battery makers around the world
● Peter Marshall
➢ Mining engineer with 30 years experience in mine development and construction,
➢ Formerly VP Project Development, New Gold and SVP Project Development, Terrane Metals
➢ Extensive mine development experience in central British Columbia, including completion of Blackwater feasibility study (New Gold) and development and early
construction of Mt. Milligan copper-gold mine (Terrane Metals, acquired by Thompson Creek for $650 million in 2010)
● Rob Pease
➢ Geologist with over 30 years experience in exploration, mine development and construction
➢ Former CEO Terrane Metals (Mt. Milligan copper-gold mine, central B.C.), acquired by Thompson Creek for $650 million
➢ Former Director, Richfield Ventures Corp (Blackwater gold project, central B.C.), acquired by New Gold for $500 million
● Jim Gilbert
➢ MBA with 30 years experience in international mergers and acquisition and finance
➢ 20-plus years in the global mining sector, including senior positions with Rothschild, Gerald Metals and Minera S.A.
➢ Former Director, AQM Copper Inc., acquired by Teck Resources in 2016
● William Myckatyn
➢ Mining engineer with over 34 years experience in the international mining industry
➢ Former Co-Chairman and CEO of Quadra – FNX (acquired by KGHM for $3 billion)
➢ Director, San Marco Resources, Oceana Gold
● John McDonald
➢ Geologist with 40-plus years experience in international exploration
➢ Co-Founder and founding Director – Mineral Deposit Research Unit, University of British Columbia
➢ Director, Canterra Minerals, Hudson Resources, Independence Gold
● Martin Turenne
➢ President & CEO, FPX Nickel Corp. (see bio on page 34)
35FPX Nickel Corp.
Suite 620 – 1155 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6E 2P4
Phone: +1 604-681-8600
www.fpxnickel.com
info@fpxnickel.com
Twitter: @FPX_Nickel
36You can also read
