Vancouver, June 14, 2010 – Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Mosquito – TSX Venture: MSQ) is pleased to report receipt of the completed National Instrument 43-101 technical report, prepared by Snowden Mining Industry Consultants (Snowden), an independent, internationally recognized mineral industry consultant, on its Idaho-based CUMO molybdenum-copper project and its filing with SEDAR (www.sedar.com).
The Company is also pleased to announce that detailed examination of the NI43-101 report and of individual blocks comprising the Mineral Resource estimated by Snowden, has shown that the CUMO project contains an estimated 1.89 billion tons Indicated Resource and 2.91 billion tons Inferred Resource of higher-grade open-pit accessible multi-element resources at a $5 RCV. Details of the estimation can be found in Snowden’s NI43-101 report. Two scenarios are presented based on different low (waste), medium(stockpile) and high cutoff grades. Actual mine cutoff grade depends on the production rate, examination of existing mines and recent feasibility studies indicate that for production rates of less than 100,000 tons per day, a $7.50 Gross Recoverable Value (RCV) cutoff is reasonable, while for production rates greater than 100,000 tons per day, a $5 RCV cutoff is reasonable. Material between the $2.50 global resource cutoff (announced April 27,2011, press release) and the waste cutoff ($7.50 or $5.00 RCV) is considered waste under these scenario's, however this material would be reconsidered based on prevailing metal prices at the time of potential extraction. Examination of Snowden's tables shows the following:
At $5.00 low cutoff and a $20 high cutoff the Mineral Resource reported using the guidelines of the CIM are reported below.
Indicated Mineral Resource
Cutoff | Grade > Cutoff | Contained Metal | Recov. | Recov. Lbs | ||||||||
RCV | millions | MoS2 | Cu | Ag | W | Million | Million | Million | Million | Million | Cu | MoO3 |
$US | (tons) | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (ppm) | lbs. Mo | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | oz Ag | lbs W | Equiv | Equiv |
<5* | 158.60 | 0.006 | 0.05 | 1.76 | 15.20 | 12.0 | 17.9 | 144.3 | 8.2 | 4.8 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
5-20 | 1,012.51 | 0.035 | 0.09 | 2.67 | 34.70 | 428.9 | 643.3 | 1821.4 | 78.7 | 70.3 | 0.31 | 0.73 |
>=20 | 881.2 | 0.094 | 0.08 | 2.15 | 47.37 | 988.5 | 1482.7 | 1325.7 | 55.1 | 83.5 | 0.68 | 1.60 |
Inferred Mineral Resource
Cutoff | Grade > Cutoff | Contained Metal | Recov. | Recov. Lbs | ||||||||
RCV | millions | MoS2 | Cu | Ag | W | Million | Million | Million | Million | Million | Cu | MoO3 |
$US | (tons) | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (ppm) | lbs. Mo | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | oz Ag | lbs W | Equiv | Equiv |
<5* | 2,609.30 | 0.002 | 0.05 | 1.53 | 1.43 | 48.5 | 72.8 | 2407.1 | 116.1 | 7.5 | 0.09 | 0.22 |
5-20 | 2,212.09 | 0.030 | 0.07 | 2.15 | 13.53 | 806.2 | 1209.4 | 3046.8 | 138.6 | 59.9 | 0.26 | 0.61 |
>=20 | 702.9 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 1.94 | 17.27 | 713.2 | 1069.7 | 926.9 | 39.7 | 24.8 | 0.61 | 1.44 |
At $7.50 low cutoff and a $20 high cutoff the Mineral Resource reported using the guidelines of the CIM are reported below.
Indicated Resource
Cutoff | Grade > Cutoff | Contained Metal | Recov. | Recov. Lbs | ||||||||
RCV | millions | MoS2 | Cu | Ag | W | Million | Million | Million | Million | Million | Cu | MoO3 |
$US | (tons) | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (ppm) | lbs. Mo | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | oz Ag | lbs W | Equiv | Equiv |
<7.50* | 315.28 | 0.010 | 0.06 | 1.97 | 20.88 | 38.2 | 57.3 | 348.7 | 18.1 | 13.2 | 0.12 | 0.25 |
7.5-20 | 855.83 | 0.039 | 0.09 | 2.75 | 36.18 | 402.6 | 603.9 | 1617.0 | 68.8 | 61.9 | 0.34 | 0.72 |
>20 | 881.2 | 0.094 | 0.08 | 2.15 | 47.37 | 988.5 | 1482.7 | 1325.7 | 55.1 | 83.5 | 0.68 | 1.60 |
Inferred Mineral Resource
Cutoff | Grade > Cutoff | Contained Metal | Recov. | Recov. Lbs | ||||||||
RCV | millions | MoS2 | Cu | Ag | W | Million | Million | Million | Million | Million | Cu | MoO3 |
$US | (tons) | (%) | (%) | (g/t) | (ppm) | lbs. Mo | lbs MoO3 | lbs Cu | oz Ag | lbs W | Equiv | Equiv |
<7.50* | 3,272.14 | 0.004 | 0.05 | 1.63 | 3.31 | 144.0 | 216.0 | 3506.1 | 155.6 | 21.6 | 0.10 | 0.24 |
7.5-20 | 1,549.25 | 0.038 | 0.06 | 2.19 | 14.75 | 710.8 | 1066.2 | 1947.7 | 99.1 | 45.7 | 0.31 | 0.72 |
>20 | 702.9 | 0.085 | 0.07 | 1.94 | 17.27 | 713.2 | 1069.7 | 926.9 | 39.7 | 24.8 | 0.61 | 1.44 |
Note: * Considered waste under these higher grade scenario's
Metallurgical study recoveries are included in the recovered equivalent calculation.
For calculation of Recovered values (RCV), Cu Equiv., and MoS2 equiv. see description at end of news release.
As a result of this new information, Mosquito has decided to concentrate on obtaining a Mineral Resource and a mineable Mineral Reserve to support a minimum 30 year mine life.
“CUMO has 1.89 billion tons Indicated Resource and an additional 2.91 billion tons Inferred Resource of open-pit accessible multi-element mineralization,” said Mosquito President Brian McClay. “This includes: in the Indicated Resource category 2.12 billion pounds of ‘moly’ (molybdenum oxide), 3.15 billion pounds of copper, 133.8 million ounces of silver and 153.7 million pounds of tungsten, with an additional, in the Inferred Resource category, 2.28 billion pounds of ‘moly’ (molybdenum oxide), 3.97 billion pounds of copper, 178.4 million ounces of silver and 84.1 million pounds of tungsten. CUMO contains one of the world’s largest, strategic, stores of mineral wealth and we expect to develop the project significantly further during 2011-2012.”
In addition to MoS2, Cu ,Ag and W, significant quantities of the valuable high-tech metal rhenium – a by-product metal associated with molybdenum mineralization – have also been identified. Due to the lack of historical assays, these metals have not been included in the current Mineral Resource estimations, but they have been identified in the recent completed metallurgical study.
Immediate plans for the CuMo deposit are, to continue drilling to further delineate the mineralized zones and to improve the confidence in the large part of the Inferred Resource estimates to convert them to the Measured and Indicated Resource categories. Engineering and environmental work will aim to produce a feasibility study in two to three years. Drilling is scheduled to resume in mid-June on the property.
“Our main objective for additional drilling is to expand the identified Mineral Resource and convert its Inferred Mineral Resources to the Indicated and Measured Resource categories. Concurrently, we also want to determine the overall size of the CUMO resource by drilling at or near the edges of the mineralized zone,” stated Shaun Dykes, Exploration Manager and Director of Mosquito.
Mr. Shaun M. Dykes, M.Sc. (Eng), P.Geo., Exploration Manager and Director of Mosquito is the designated qualified person for the CUMO Project, and prepared the technical information contained in this news release.
On Behalf of the Board
MOSQUITO CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINES LTD.
Brian McClay
President
About Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines
Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited is a mining exploration and development company with a diverse portfolio of high potential precious and base metals projects, located in low political risk environments in North America. The Company's primary focus is developing its Idaho-based CuMo project, one of the world’s largest molybdenum, copper and silver deposits. For more information about the Company, please visit www.mosquitogold.com and www.CuMoproject.com
THIS NEWS RELEASE WAS PREPARED BY MANAGEMENT WHO TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTENTS. THE TSX-VENTURE EXCHANGE does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
This news release includes certain statements that express management’s expectation or estimates of future performance and may be deemed “forward-looking statements”. These forward-looking statements include plans, estimates, forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations regarding the CuMo Project. These forward-looking statements involve assumptions, risks and uncertainties and actual results may vary materially. For these reasons shareholders should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information.
United States residents are cautioned that some of the information that may be published by Mosquito may not be consistent with United States Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules and may be materially different from what the Company is permitted to disclose in the United States and therefore United States residents should not rely on such information.
Notes: RCV is a recovered metal value based on the grade and tonnage estimates described above.
$2.50 RCV cutoff was chosen as the base cutoff grade for comparison of global resource as it is the lowest cutoff value that has reasonable prospects of economic extraction. Especially when current metal prices, (which are significantly higher than those used in the study) are taken into consideration.
Some of the Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
Due to TSX exchange rules only the cutoff can be reported prior to feasibility, not the actual values.
a Copper equivalent (Cu. Equiv.) and Molybdenite equivalent (MoS2 Equiv.) are based on the following metal prices (all in US$): Copper $2.10/lb, Molybdenum Oxide ($16/lb), Silver $0.35/gram and Tungsten $0.22/gram.($7.00 per lb). Other factors include 1% = 20 pounds; 1 ppm = 1 gm/T; 1000 ppb =1 ppm = 1 gm/T.
Molybdenum is sold as either ferro-molybdenite or molybdenum oxide.
The price used in these estimates is $16 per pound Molybdenum oxide.
To obtain the amount of Molybdenum oxide that can be produced from MoS2, the following is required: convert MoS2 to Mo by dividing MoS2 by 1.6681 then convert to MoO3 (Molybdenum Oxide) by multiplying by 1.5. Therefore the amount of molybdenum oxide is pounds MoS2 times 1.5 / 1.6681.
Estimated metallurgical recoveries used in the calculations are as follows for each metal zone. Recoveries are slightly lower that those currently reported by SGS in their recent metallurgical study, as they have been adjusted by Ausenco to reflect losses anticipated during the cleaning and roasting stages.
TABLE 4
Zone | Cu% | MoS2% | Ag % | W % |
weathered | 60% | 80% | 70% | 35% |
CuAg | 68% | 85% | 73% | 35% |
CuMo | 87% | 92% | 78% | 35% |
Mo | 80% | 95% | 55% | 35% |
Footwall | 80% | 95% | 55% | 35% |
Formulas :
Recovery (recv) for a metal is taken from the above table for each assay/block in a particular zone and is value percentage/100
RCV= ((Cu*20*$* recv)+((MoS2*20*(1.5/1.6681)*$(MoO3)* recv)+(Ag*$* recv)+(W*$* recv))
Recovered Cu. Equiv. = RCV / ($(Copper) *20)
Recovered MoS2. Equiv. = RCV / ((1.6681/1.5)* $(MoO3)*20)
Mineral Resources do not have demonstrated economic viability.
43-101 Resource classification definition based on CIM Standing Committee on Reserve Definitions.
“A ‘Measured Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which
quantity, grade or quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well
established that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the
appropriate application of technical and economic parameters, to support production
planning and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is
based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered
through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both geological
and grade continuity.”
“An ‘Indicated Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which
quantity, grade or quality. Densities, shape and physical characteristics can be
estimated with a level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of
technical and economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and
reliable exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques
from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are
spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably
assumed.”
“An ‘Inferred Mineral Resource’ is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity
and grade or quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited
sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade continuity.
The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered through
appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and
drill holes.”
