TSX Venture Exchange: FEO
All figures in U.S. Dollars Unless Otherwise
Noted
CAPEX ESTIMATE RESULTS IN REDUCTION OF INITIAL
CAPITAL COST BY 58% TO USD $1.19
BILLION
POST TAX NPV8 OF USD $1.4 BILLION
MAINTAINS ROBUST POST TAX IRR OF 17%
CONSISTENT WITH 2012 PFS
LOW NPV / INITIAL CAPEX RATIO OF 1.18 FOR A
LONG LIFE BULK COMMODITY PROJECT
MAINTAINED LOW OPERATING COSTS AT USD
$30.70/TONNE
LOW STRIP RATIO OF 0.81 : 1 OVER A 28 YEAR
MINE LIFE
POTENTIAL FOR EXTENSION OF THE MINE LIFE
BEYOND 28 YEARS
HIGH QUALITY CONCENTRATE GRADING 66.6% Fe AT
AN INITIAL RATE OF 5 MTPA (EXPANSION TO 10 MTPA)
VANCOUVER, Dec. 19, 2019 /CNW/ - Oceanic Iron Ore Corp.
("Oceanic", or the "Company") is pleased to announce
the results of a National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101")
Preliminary Economic Assessment (the "Study") prepared by
BBA Engineering Ltd. ("BBA") in respect of the Company's
Hopes Advance Project (the "Project").
A Pre-Feasibility Study was completed on the Project in 2012
("2012 PFS"). The Company is not treating the economic
results of the 2012 PFS or the related Mineral Reserve estimates as
current. However, some of the scientific and technical
information generated during the 2012 PFS is used as a basis for
the Study.
The objective of the PEA was to rescope the Project profile and
production scale using Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
estimated within three of the 10 defined deposits in order to
reduce the up-front capital required to bring the Project to
commercial production. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral
Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Key differences in this Study compared to the 2012 PFS include
the following:
- Significantly lower initial capital expenditure
- Reduced production scale to accommodate the aforementioned
lower capital expenditure
- Seasonal shipping of concentrate versus year-round shipping in
the 2012 PFS, reducing Port infrastructure capital costs and
eliminating winter shipping risks
- Construction of a more cost-effective module based
barge-mounted power plant versus a land based plant and reliance on
Hydro Quebec connections in the 2012 PFS. Although the
Company is not reliant on third party infrastructure, there exists
the potential for future power operating cost savings in the event
a transmission line connection is established with Hydro
Québec
- Base case FOB selling price of USD $82/t, versus US $100/t in the 2012 PFS
- The assumed exchange rate used in the current Study was US
$0.75 = CAD$1.00, versus a US $1.00 = CAD $1.00
exchange rate in the 2012 PFS
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
The results of the Study attribute significant value to the
Project and present a significant reduction in initial capital
expenditure requirements, all while achieving the same post tax IRR
as the 2012 PFS. Importantly, the Project achieves an NPV /
Initial Capex Ratio of 1.18, which is rare for bulk/base metal
projects where capital requirements are typically very high.
Additional Attributes of the Project:
- Project implementation and development schedule independent
of third-party infrastructure, including extension to the Hydro
Québec grid north to the Project
-
- Construction and operations to utilize barge-mounted
self-generated power;
- Low operating cost per tonne resulting from "no rail"
advantage, simple metallurgy and low strip ratio (0.81:1 over life
of mine)
- Pilot plant metallurgical test work conducted as part of the
2012 PFS, confirms product quality suitable for pellet or sinter
feed
-
- 66.6% Fe grade concentrate with low deleterious elements and
silica content ≤ 4.5%
- High weight and Fe recoveries using a relatively simple flow
sheet
- Construction of a marine facility in Hopes Advance Bay at
Pointe Breakwater
Steven Dean, Executive
Chairman of Oceanic said: "The challenge with bulk commodity
development projects is that the initial capex to get the project
to commercial production is typically very high. The objective of
this study was to outline a path forward for Hopes Advance that
envisions a significantly reduced initial capex by reducing start
up scale while retaining optionality on future expansion funded
from future cash flows. A simplified energy efficient process flow
sheet, seasonal shipping, combined with lower port and power
capex amongst other things has managed to achieve a reduction of
initial capex from the 2012 PFS of 60% while maintaining a low cash
cost per tonne and similar IRRs. As a result, we believe this
makes Hopes Advance a more financeable, and therefore an attractive
project in today's market."
The Study
The Study was led by the Montreal office of BBA, a Canadian consulting
engineering firm with over 900 employees, who have extensive
experience with iron ore projects, particularly in the Labrador
Trough. Working alongside BBA was Wood (formerly, AMEC Foster
Wheeler), who worked with the Company on Port related
infrastructure in the Company's previous studies.
The Company presents two cases as part of the Study with the
only variable between the cases being the FOB selling price.
The Base Case assumes an FOB selling price of approximately USD
$82/t (approximately US $105/t CFR). The alternate case presents
the economics of the Project using a spot price of approximately
USD $89/t FOB (November 22nd 2019).
In both cases, the Study is based on initial production of
approximately 5 million tonnes per annum of dry concentrate
followed by an expansion in year 5 to approximately 10 million
tonnes per annum. The financial analysis for the Study is limited
to a 28-year mine life and considers only 3 of the 10 deposits for
which mineral resources have been estimated. The Company believes
that the remaining resources could support continued operations
well beyond 28 years. The 28‑year mine plan for the Study is based
on mining the Castle Mountain, Iron Valley and Bay Zone F deposits
whereas the 2012 PFS considered mining all 10 of the Hopes Advance
deposits at an initial concentrate production rate of 10 Mtpa with
an expansion to 20 Mtpa in year 11 over a 30 year mine life.
For both initial and expansion phases of the Study, power is
self-generated using diesel fuel. Concentrate is filtered at
the concentrator site and transported year-round by truck to a port
stockpile where it is shipped only during summer months (under the
2012 PFS, concentrate in a slurry state was pumped to the port and
re-dried. The rescoped approach eliminates costs related to
regrinding and drying the concentrate at the port). Such
seasonal shipping results in reduced port installation costs and
the avoidance of having to use higher cost ice class vessels during
the winter. For the Study, BBA is proposing a modified
process flowsheet which is more energy efficient, aimed at reducing
power requirements (and fuel storage) and expected to improve the
Project's carbon footprint compared to the initial phase in the
2012 PFS which required significantly more electric power which was
generated using heavy fuel oil.
Updated Value in Use Study Reaffirms Product Desirability of
Hopes Advance Product
In 2013, the Company commissioned and received a Product Value
in Use Marketing Study ("2013 VIU Study") from Vulcantech
Technologies. The 2013 VIU Study concluded that, in addition
to the iron unit premium for the high grade Hopes Advance product
at 66.6% Fe measured against the 62% Fe benchmark, the low
impurities associated with the Hopes Advance product could attract
an additional quality premium for steel producers in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
In 2019, the Company commissioned Vulcantech Technologies to
update its VIU study (the "2019 VIU Study") in order to
obtain current market data as to the potential pricing and demand
for Hopes Advance Iron Ore.
The 2019 VIU Study concludes that:
- Recent environmental restrictions placed by Chinese Central and
Provincial Governments are likely to lead to more support for
higher grade iron ores as steel mills try to maximize steel
production and minimize pollution, driven by chemical inputs used
in removing deleterious elements from iron ore
- 65% Fe index ores are expected to obtain a 15-30% premium per
Fe unit over the 62% Fe benchmark prices
- The quality premium over and above the 65% Fe index ores has
been reduced to approximately 5%
- Due to the above, improved pricing compared to the base case
pricing used for the Study would be expected given the low
phosphorus and alumina content of the Hopes Advance material
- While the 2019 VIU Study focuses on Chinese demand, steel
producers in China, Korea,
Japan, Taiwan and Europe could still benefit considerably from
the product's low impurity chemistry.
Hopes Advance's Competitive Cost Profile Compared to Industry
Producers*
The Base Case FOB Price of US $82.14 and shipping costs of US $22.83/t (to Qingdao,
China), results in a CFR price of US $104.97/t. In comparing the Hopes Advance
product economics to that of producers, it is important to factor
in the premium applied in the pricing of the Hopes Advance product
to other iron ore products. By way of example, by using the
implied premium of the Hopes Advance product to product from the
Pilbara region of Australia as a
reduction or credit to the operating cost at Hopes Advance, a more
meaningful and appropriate operating cost comparison per tonne of
product shipped is achieved. As per Table 2 below, the net
effective operating costs at Hopes Advance are arguably very
competitive to Pilbara blends, the largest source of seaborne iron
ore.
Table 2 – Calculation of Net Effective Operating Cost at Hopes
Advance versus the Pilbara Fines
Estimated CFR Price
per tonne of concentrate
|
$104.97
|
CFR Forward Price -
Pilbara Fines 61.5
|
($87.05)**
|
Implied Premium for
grade and quality of Hopes Advance concentrate vs Pilbara
Fines
|
$17.92
|
|
|
Life of Mine
operating cost per tonne – Hopes Advance
|
$30.70
|
Less: Implied Premium
of Hopes Advance concentrate vs Pilbara Fines
|
($17.92)
|
Net Effective
Comparative Operating Cost per tonne – Hopes Advance
|
$12.78
|
*This section is based on analysis by the Company and is not
contained in the technical report for the Study
**Source
– BAIINFO Iron Ore Daily, Issue 19-227, December 4, 2019
Metallurgical Testwork and Process Flowsheet
No new metallurgical testwork has been performed on the Project
since the 2012 PFS. As such, the current PEA relies on previous
testwork. This testwork consisted of bench scale tests as well as a
pilot test program. Generally, the results of the testwork
indicated the following characteristics for the mineralized
material tested:
- It is relatively soft
- It can be processed with a simple and conventional flow
sheet
- A concentrate with low SiO2 and low deleterious
elements can be produced
The conceptual flowsheet and plant design proposed in the Study
are based on the following:
- Testwork performed during the 2012 PFS.
- A comminution circuit based on HPGR grinding technology.
- The use of a three-stage spiral circuit for gravity
concentration, as in the 2012 PFS.
- A scaled version of the magnetic concentrator plant from the
2012 PFS, substituting the Ball Mill with more energy efficient
Verti-Mills.
- Flowsheet improvements, plant design and general layouts based
on BBA's experience on other similar projects.
- Concentrate trucking to the port removing the requirement of
regrinding the hematite concentrate and construction of a
pipeline.
A simplified mineral processing flowsheet is shown in Figures 1
and 2.
A description of the proposed process is set out below:
- Run of mine mill feed material is crushed in two stages prior
to being stockpiled;
- Crushed mill feed material will be is reclaimed and undergoes a
size reduction to a P80 of 140µm via HPGR and ball milling;
- The material is then pumped to a gravity recovery circuit which
produces a final hematite concentrate and a gravity tail;
- The gravity tails are pumped to magnetic separation wherein the
magnetic portion is recovered and sent to filtration along with the
hematite concentrate;
- The tailings from magnetic separation are thickened and pumped
to a tailings pond;
- The filtered concentrate is stockpiled to be loaded year-round
into trucks which transport the concentrate to a stock yard where a
stacker-reclaimer system will place the material into a storage
stockpile to be shipped during the summer season;
Mineral Resource Estimate
The Hopes Advance iron deposits comprise a total of 10 mineral
deposits. These deposits are a typical stratigraphic iron
deposit similar to other Labrador Trough iron deposits of
Lake Superior-type iron
formations, located at the northern end of the Labrador Trough.
The Hopes Advance iron formations are thick Sokoman Iron
Formation, with magnetite, magnetite and hematite units that
strike east-west to northeast and have gentle dips to the south and
southeast. The iron formations are typically 40–70 m
thick, and often crop out at surface. The three
largest deposits are the Castle Mountain, Bay Zone F and Iron
Valley deposits.
Mineral Resources that were estimated assuming open pit mining
methods in 2012 were reviewed in 2019 to determine if they were
still current. These reviews included checks on the
confidence classification assignments based on changes to defined
terms between the 2010 and 2014 editions of the Canadian Institute
of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Definition Standards for
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, inputs into the Whittle
optimisation shells that constrain the estimate, and commodity
price assumptions as a result of the 2019 VIU Study.
Eddy Canova, P. Geo, a consultant to
the Company concluded that the estimates remain current, and
have an effective date of 20 November, 2019, which is the date
the reviews were completed.
Mineral Resources were estimated for the Bay Zone B, C, D, E, F,
Castle Mountain, Iron Valley, West Zone 2, West Zone 4 and
West Macdonald deposits, and are
totalled in Table 3.
Notes:
1
|
The Qualified
Person responsible for the estimates (including the current Mineral
Resource estimates) is Mr. Eddy Canova, P. Geo, a
consultant to the Company
|
2
|
Mineral Resources
are reported assuming open pit mining methods. Mineral
Resources were initially reported with an effective date
of 19 September 2012, on a block model that had an effective date
of 2 April 2012. A review was undertaken in 2019, which
concluded
that the estimate and its inputs were current, and the effective
date for the reviewed estimate is 20 November, 2019. The
Mineral
Resource is now current as at November 20, 2019
|
3
|
Mineral Resources
are classified using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not
have
demonstrated economic viability
|
4
|
The Mineral
Resources were estimated using a block model with parent blocks of
50 m by 50 m by 15 m sub-blocked to a minimum size
of 25 m by 25 m by 1m and using inverse distance weighting to the
third power (ID3) methods for grade estimation. A total of
10
individual mineralized domains were identified and each estimated
into a separate block model. Given the continuity of the iron
assay
values, no top cuts were applied. All resources are reported
using an iron cut-off grade of 25% within conceptual Whittle pit
shells and
a mining recovery of 100%. The Whittle shells used the
following input parameters: commodity price of USD $115/dmt
of concentrate;
C$:US$ exchange rate of 0.97; assumed overall pit slope angle of
50º; 1% royalty; mining cost of CAD $2.00/t material moved;
process
cost of CAD $16.22/t of concentrate; port costs of CAD $1.45/t of
concentrate; and general and administrative costs of CAD $3.38/t
of
concentrate
|
5
|
Estimates have
been rounded and may result in summation differences
|
Mine Plan
The proposed mining method selected for the Project consists of
a conventional open pit, truck and shovel, drill and blast
operation. The mineralized material and waste rock will be mined
with 10 m high benches, drilled, blasted and loaded into a
fleet of 292 t capacity haul trucks with diesel hydraulic shovels.
The mineralized material will be hauled to the primary crushing
facility and the waste rock will be hauled to either the waste rock
piles or to the tailings facility to be used as construction
material.
Even though the Hopes Advance Bay Mineral Resources are
contained within ten (10) distinct deposits, the Study is limited
to the Castle Mountain, Iron Valley, and Bay Zone F deposits. These
three deposits provide sufficient material to sustain the first 28
years of operation at the production rate considered in the Study.
Each of these deposits has favorable economics (higher grade
and lower strip ratios than the other deposits) and they are also
the three largest resource bases of the ten deposits. Only mineral
resources classified as Measured and Indicated are considered in
the mine plan as potential mill feed.
Table 4 below presents the subset of the Mineral Resources that
are contained within the open pit designs that were used to develop
the life of mine plan for the Study. The resource subset is
reported above a cut-off grade of 25% Fe and includes mining
dilution and mining losses which were estimated to be 1.5% and 5%
respectively.
Table 4: Subset of Mineral Resources within the PEA mine plan
(25% Fe Cut-Off Grade)
Deposit
|
Measured
Resources
|
Indicated
Resources
|
Total
Resources
|
Waste
|
Strip
Ratio
|
Tonnes
|
Fe
|
WR
|
Tonnes
|
Fe
|
WR
|
Tonnes
|
Fe
|
WR
|
Tonnes
|
(Mt)
|
(%)
|
(%)
|
(Mt)
|
(%)
|
(%)
|
(Mt)
|
(%)
|
(%)
|
(Mt)
|
Castle
Mountain
|
266
|
32.6
|
38.0
|
107
|
32.6
|
38.0
|
372
|
32.6
|
38.0
|
317
|
0.85
|
Iron
Valley
|
34
|
34.1
|
40.0
|
57
|
33.9
|
40.0
|
91
|
34.0
|
40.0
|
62
|
0.68
|
Bay Zone F
|
107
|
33.0
|
39.0
|
114
|
32.7
|
38.0
|
221
|
32.8
|
38.5
|
178
|
0.80
|
Total
|
406
|
32.8
|
38.4
|
278
|
32.9
|
38.4
|
684
|
32.9
|
38.4
|
557
|
0.81
|
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Processing Plan
The Process design basis for both the initial and expansion
phases of the Study is outlined in Table 5.
Table 5: Proposed process design basis
Parameter
|
Unit**
|
Initial
Phase*
|
Expansion
Phase*
|
Total feed processing
rate
|
Mtpa
|
13.3
|
26.5
|
Weight recovery (per
project phase)
|
%
|
39.1%
|
38.2%
|
Weight recovery
(LOM)
|
%
|
38.4%
|
Concentrate produced
(Total)
|
Mtpa
|
5.18
|
10.13
|
Concentrate produced
(gravity ~ 84%)
|
Mtpa
|
4.35
|
8.51
|
Concentrate produced
(magnetic ~ 16%)
|
Mtpa
|
0.83
|
1.62
|
Final Concentrate
Grade (%Fe , % SiO2)
|
%
|
66.6% Fe, 4.50%
SiO2
|
* Initial Phase from
Yr 1 to Yr 4. Expansion Phase from Yr 5 to Yr 28. Excludes ramp-up
years Yr 1 & Yr 5
** All tonnages are
in dry metric tonnes
|
Site Infrastructure Conceptual Layout
The general site plot plan and main infrastructure features for
the Project is based on the plan and layout developed during the
2012 PFS. Mining of the Castle Mountain, Iron Valley and Bay
Zone F deposits only are considered for the Study. The other
mineralized areas are left unencumbered in consideration of future
mining.
- The crusher/concentrator area is maintained in the same general
area identified in the 2012 PFS. The required footprint is adjusted
to the 5 Mtpa initial plant with room provided for a parallel line
for expansion to 10 Mtpa.
- Waste rock piles have been designed to store waste rock
generated during the first 28 years of the mining operations at the
prescribed mining rate of the Study.
- Tailings are pumped into the designated tailings storage
facility, based on the deposition plan and TMF progressive design
developed for the 2012 PFS. For the current PEA however,
construction of the initial dikes, as well as the dikes that are
progressively being constructed, have been adjusted to the
estimated annual tailings volumes generated by the project at 5
Mtpa followed by an expansion to 10 Mtpa. Material for dike
construction will be supplied by the mine.
- Filtered concentrate, at a nominal moisture of 8%, from the
concentrator is discharged onto a stockpile where it is loaded into
haul trucks using loaders. The trucks transport the concentrate to
the port area concentrate stockpile year-round.
- A 26 km access road will connect the port to the mine to be
used for concentrate transport and delivery of consumables and
cargo to the mine.
- Other infrastructure includes a permanent 400 person modular
camp at the mine and 25 person camp at the port, the rehabilitation
of an existing airstrip, and service buildings including mine
equipment garage facilities and warehouses and fuel storage tank
farm.
- At the port, concentrate is stacked and reclaimed using a
common conveyor belt that discharges onto the shiploading conveyor.
Stacking is performed year-round, whereas reclaiming is seasonal.
During the summer shipping season, concentrate is reclaimed using a
bucket reclaimer. A location for an identical stockpile and
conveying system is proposed for the expansion to 10 Mtpa.
- The Project marine facilities are planned to be fully developed
for the initial phase in order to handle the ultimate concentrate
production rate of 10 Mtpa (dry basis). In addition to concentrate
shipment, the marine facilities will accommodate shipments of
various cargoes as required for the mine and the concentrator
operation. The conceptual design of the marine facilities,
including the shiploading system was developed by Wood.
- The Project iron ore berth is designed to accommodate bulk
carriers ranging from 70,000 DWT to 240,000 DWT. For general cargo
shipment, vessels ranging from 10,000 DWT to 45,000 DWT were
assumed for the purpose of the wharf design. The design considers
that marine activities will be seasonal with operations taking
place only during the ice-free season, assumed to last 110
days.
- The power plant is a prefabricated, barge system that is
beached and bermed at the port and includes a 120 kV substation.
The initial capacity is 48 MW plus 19 MW stand-by. An additional 29
MW will be added for the expansion. A 26 km overhead transmission
line will be installed to deliver power from the power plant to the
mine site.
Key Metrics of the Study
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding. The PEA is
based on Mineral Resources. Mineral Resources that are not
Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The mine plan is based on Mineral Resources that have not been
classified as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the
PEA based on these Mineral Resources will be realized.
Figure 4 below highlights the sensitivity of post-tax NPV8 and
IRR to the FOB concentrate selling price, the initial capex and the
LOM operating costs:
Capital Costs
Construction and Sustaining Capital Costs are set out
below. The reduction in capital costs versus the 2012 PEA is
largely due to the rescoped sizing of the plant and related
infrastructure given the reduced production profile of the Project.
Considering that concentrate is trucked to the port and not pumped,
this eliminates costs related to regrinding and drying the
concentrate. Furthermore, a strategy of leasing the mining, site
service and concentrate hauling equipment and the barge-based power
plant has been adopted in this PEA. This transfers costs from
capital costs to operating costs.
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Operating Costs
A summary of the estimated operating costs is set out below:
* Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
The low operating costs are a function of a number of factors
including:
- No rail component given the project's proximity to the
identified port site at Pointe Breakwater.
- A low strip ratio, averaging 0.81:1 over the life of mine.
- Straightforward metallurgy and high Fe recoveries.
Operating Costs exclude the 2% royalty payable to the previous
holders of the Project. The Study assumes that the Company
will exercise its right to purchase half of this royalty for
$3 million at the commencement of
commercial production.
Environmental Permitting
To date, all of the terrestrial baseline work for the
Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed. The outstanding
components include marine baseline data inventories and additional
consultations with relevant stakeholders.
A time sensitive migratory bird survey was completed during
May 2016. Further, in September 2016, the Company completed baseline
data collection focused on marine mammals, fish studies, water
quality, and mollusk habitat. With the insights obtained from
baseline data collection and environmental studies the Company will
engage in additional future dialogue with Inuit stakeholders in the
region to optimize the Project's benefits and minimize the impacts
associated with the Project's construction and subsequent
operations.
Next Steps
In the coming months, the Company will be focused on the
following activities:
- Completion of the NI 43-101 technical report in respect of the
Study, which will be filed on SEDAR and on the Company's website
within 45 days of this news release. This technical report
will supersede the 2012 PFS technical report.
- Securing a strategic partner for Oceanic to further advance the
Project.
- Securing additional financing to allow for the above.
Technical Disclosure
A NI 43-101 technical report is being prepared by BBA in respect
of the Study. The technical information contained in this news
release has been reviewed and approved by Mr. Derek Blais, P. Eng., of BBA with the
exception of the Mineral Resource estimate which was reviewed and
approved by Mr. E. Canova and the mine design and mine plan which
have been prepared and approved by Mr. J. Cassoff, P. Eng.
These individuals are all Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43-101
and independent of the Company.
OCEANIC IRON ORE CORP. (www.oceanicironore.com)
On behalf of the Board of Directors
"Steven Dean"
Executive Chairman
Tel: 604 566 9080
Fax: 604 566 9081
About Oceanic:
Oceanic is focused on the development of its 100% owned Hopes
Advance, Morgan Lake and Roberts Lake iron ore development projects
located on the coast in the Labrador Trough in Québec,
Canada. In December 2019,
the Company published the results of a preliminary economic
assessment completed in respect of the flagship Hopes Advance
project outlining a base case pre-tax NPV8 of USD$2.4 bn (post-tax NPV8 of USD $1.4 bn) over a 28 year mine life, supported by a
NI 43-101 measured and indicated mineral resource of approximately
1.36 bn tonnes and a life of mine operating cost of approximately
USD $30/tonne. Further
information in respect of the Morgan Lake and Roberts Lake
projects, both of which have been explored historically and which
have defined historical resources, is also available on the
Company's website.
Forward Looking Statements:
This news release includes certain "Forward-Looking
Statements" as that term is used in applicable securities law. All
statements included herein, other than statements of historical
fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the
Study, the assumptions and pricing contained in the Study, the
economic analysis contained in the Study, the results of the Study,
the technical report for the Study, the development of the Project,
securing a partner for the Project, securing additional financing
for the Project, the mineral resources at the Project, and future
plans and objectives of Oceanic are forward-looking statements that
involve various risks and uncertainties. In certain cases,
forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words
such as "plans", "expects" or "does not expect", "scheduled",
"objective", "believes", "assumes", "likely", or variations of such
words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or
results "potentially", "may", "could", "would", "should", "might"
or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. There can be no assurance
that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results
could differ materially from those expressed or implied by such
statements. Forward-looking statements are based on certain
assumptions that management believes are reasonable at the time
they are made. In making the forward-looking statements in
this presentation, the Company has applied several material
assumptions, including, but not limited to, the assumption that:
(1) there being no significant disruptions affecting operations,
whether due to labour/supply disruptions, damage to equipment or
otherwise; (2) permitting, development, expansion and power supply
proceeding on a basis consistent with the Company's current
expectations; (3) certain price assumptions for iron ore; (4)
prices for availability of natural gas, fuel oil, electricity,
parts and equipment and other key supplies remaining consistent
with current levels; (5) the accuracy of current mineral resource
estimates on the Company's property; and (6) labour and material
costs increasing on a basis consistent with the Company's current
expectations. Important factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed
under the heading "Risks and Uncertainties " in the Company's
MD&A filed November 21, 2019 (a
copy of which is publicly available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under
the Company's profile) and elsewhere in documents filed from time
to time, including MD&A, with the TSX Venture Exchange and
other regulatory authorities. Such factors include, among others,
risks related to the ability of the Company to obtain necessary
financing and adequate insurance; the ability of the Company to
secure a partner for the Project; the economy generally;
fluctuations in the currency markets; fluctuations in the spot and
forward price of iron ore or certain other commodities (e.g.,
diesel fuel and electricity); changes in interest rates; disruption
to the credit markets and delays in obtaining financing; the
possibility of cost overruns or unanticipated expenses; employee
relations. Accordingly, readers are advised not to place undue
reliance on Forward-Looking Statements. Except as required
under applicable securities legislation, the Company undertakes no
obligation to publicly update or revise Forward-Looking Statements,
whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise.
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services
Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX
Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or
accuracy of this release.
SOURCE Oceanic Iron Ore Corp.