US Copper Corp Files PEA for Moonlight-Superior Project: US$1.075 billion NPV
US Copper Corp Files PEA for Moonlight-Superior Project:
US$1.075 billion NPV
Highlights of the Moonlight-Superior PEA (Base Case @US$4.15/lb Cu) include:
After-tax NPV @ 7% of US$1.075 billion
After-tax IRR of 23%
Initial Capital of US$956 million
All-in Sustaining Cost (per lb Cu produced) of US$2.51
Life of Mine Copper Production of 1.8 billion pounds, Silver Production of
12,000,000 ounces, and Gold Production of 63,000 ounces
TORONTO, CANADA, January 6, 2025 – US Copper Corp (“ US Copper” or the “ Company”)
(TSX Venture: USCU) (OTCQB: USCUF) (Frankfurt: C73) is pleased to announce the results of
a Preliminary Economic Assessment (“ PEA”) on its entire 100% controlled Moonlight-Superior
Copper Project in Northeast California (the “Project” or the “Property”). The technical report has
also been filed with Canadian Securities regulators and can be found at www.uscoppercorp.com
and SEDAR+ at sedarplus.ca under the US Copper Corp profile. All figures are expressed in United
States dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
Management Commentary
Stephen Dunn, CEO of US Copper, commented: “We are extremely pleased with the results of this
PEA which utilized our recently updated Mineral Resource Estimate (Press Release November 25,
2024). The Moonlight-Superior PEA confirms the substantial econ omic opportunity at current
copper prices that can be realized through the development of a series of open pit mines on the
Property. Additionally, the Project offers considerable leverage to increasing copper prices and the
potential available from resource expansion drilling.”
“This PEA is the culmination of several years of planning, dril ling, metallurgical testing and
engineering studies that build on our previously published 2018 PEA. Moonlight-Superior is one
of only a few large-scale undeveloped copper deposits in the Un ited States that is wholly owned
by a junior exploration company, and our intention is to use these results to attract a Joint Venture
partner as we proceed to the pre-feasibility stage.”
Mr. Dunn continued: “Copper industry experts highlight a growin g worldwide shortfall in
production of this critical miner al. These forecasts support ou r strong belief that our important
asset should become a core component of the United States’ critical minerals development strategy
that aims to ensure essential metals for the energy transition and national security and ongoing
demand growth from many economic sectors such as Artificial Int elligence. There will also be
significant benefits for the com munity and local economy with t he development of this Project.
Life of mine taxes are estimated at over $600 million and beyon d the capital and labour intensive
construction phase, we anticipate that there will be more than 300 full time jobs created at the
minesite with a peak annual payroll in the range of $35 million.”
Preliminary Economic Assessment
Global Resource Engineering Ltd. (“ GRE”) was retained by US Copper to complete a PEA
Technical Report on the Moonlight-Superior Mine Project in earl y 2024. Moonlight-Superior is
located within the Lights Creek District approximately 10 miles northeast of Greenville, California
and approximately 100 miles northwest of Reno, Nevada (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Moonlight Superior Property Location
Mineral Resource Estimate Summary
GRE initially calculated a new mineral resource for the property that included three different drill
programs over the past three years. This resource was disclosed in our News Release of November
25, 2024 and is summarized below:
Notes:
1. The effective date of the Mineral Resource is December 16, 2024.
2. The Qualified Person for the Mineral Resource Estimate is Terre Lane of GRE.
3. Mineral resources are reported at a 0.16% Cu cutoff for oxide a nd transition material and at a 10.45 NSR cutoff for sulfide
material. The oxide and transition cutoff is calculated based o n a long‐term copper price of US$4.00/lb; assumed combined
operating costs of US$7.50/ton (process and G&A); metallurgical recovery of 75% for copper. The sulfide cutoff is calculated
as the breakeven NSR, which is equal to the combined process and G&A costs for the sulfide material.
Mass
(million
tons)
Total 402.83 0.31 2,533,771 1.85 21,692,531 0.012 140,042
Total 64.59 0.31 394,199 0.77 1,448,154 0.005 9,440
Table 1: Moonlight Superior Mineral Resource Estimate
Ag Grade
(ppm)
Ag Content
(troy oz.)
Au Grade
(ppm)
Au
Content
(troy oz.)
Indicated
Inferred
Cu Grade
(%)
Cu
Content
('000 lb)
4. Mineral resources are captured within an optimized pit shell and meet the test of reasonable prospects for economic
extraction by open pit. The optimization used the same mining costs of US$2.35/ton mined and a 45º pit slope.
5. Rounding may result in apparent differences when summing tons, grade, and contained metal content.
Based on the current resource estimates for the Property, the s tudy envisions a mine life of 14
years, producing 903,000 short tons of copper (Cu), 12,000,000 oz of silver (Ag), and 63,000 oz
of gold (Au). The oxide and transition mineralization would produce 81,500 short tons of Cu from
the heap leach facilities, and th e sulfide minera lization would produce 822,000 short tons of Cu
and all of the Ag and Au from the flotation facilities. The distribution of mineralization by resource
area is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Moonlight-Superior Project Distribution of Mineralization by Resource Area
Pit
Mineralized
Tons
Cu Tons
Recovered
Sulfide
Cu Tons
Recovered
Oxide
Cu Tons
Recovered
Transition
Ag oz
Recovered
Au oz
Recovered
Engels 18,410,546 44,174 14,588 23,325 1,473,025 11,130
Moonlight 169,941,219 429,401 3,093 40,510 8,367,301 42,039
Superior 116,015,916 321,272 - - 2,194,165 10,078
Lamb’s Ridge 1,018,666 3,346 - - - -
Copper Mountain 9,226,645 23,734 - - - -
Total 314,612,992 821,926 17,681 63,834 12,034,491 63,246
Mining Methods
Mine Plans for the resource areas were designed and planned usi ng conventional open pit mining
methods. The open pit areas are suitable for phased designs.
The mine plan is designed to deliver an average of 60,000 tons of sulfide material to the mill per
day and 10,000 tons of oxide and transition material to the hea p leach per day. The average daily
waste production rate over the life of the mine would be 73,000 tons per day. Waste rock would
be placed in waste rock storage facilities near each pit area. This study contemplates constructing
flotation facilities for sulfide mineralization and heap leach facilities for oxide mineralization.
As is required under United States environmental laws, full site remediation is integral to the Mine
Plan.
Key Economic Results
The project economics shown in the PEA are favorable, providing positive Net Present Value
(NPV) values as tested over a range of copper grades, copper pr ices, capital costs, and operating
costs.
Key Cost and Price Assumptions
Commodity price and recovery assumptions:
Copper price of $4.15/lb, based on using a weighted average of the 3-year trailing average
copper price and the 1-year futures price, calculated as: 60% x 3-year trailing average price
of $4.06/lb + 40% x 1-year futures price of $4.30/lb
Silver price of $27.40/oz, based on using a weighted average of the 3-year trailing average
silver price and the 1-year futures price, calculated as: 60% x 3-year trailing average price
of $24.19/oz + 40% x 1-year futures price of $32.26/oz
Gold price of $2,320/oz, based on using a weighted average of t he 3-year trailing average
gold price and the 1-year futur es price, calculated as: 60% x 3 -year trailing average price
of $2,015/oz + 40% x 1-year futures price of $2,779/oz
Table 3: Moonlight‐Superior Copper Project Key Economic Results
Economic Measure Value
After Tax NPV @ 7% (millions) $1,075
IRR 23%
Initial Capital (millions) $956
Payback Period (year) 5.3
All‐in Sustaining Cost ($/lb Cu Produced) $2.51
Table 4: Moonlight‐Superior Copper Project Capital Cost Summary
Item Total ($millions)
Mine Equipment $218.17
Process $611.54
Infrastructure $117.35
G&A $101.72
Working $36.12
Sustaining $9.27
Contingency $218.83
Total $1,313.00
Table 5: Moonlight‐Superior Copper Project Operating Cost Summa ry
Item Total Operating Cost
($millions)
Unit
Operating
Cost
Unit
Mining $899 $1.51 $/ton mined
Processing – Sulfides $1,520 $5.24 $/ton processed
Processing – Oxides and Transition $215 $8.74 $/ton processed
Rehandle $85 $0.75 $/ton processed
G&A $108 $0.34 $/ton processed
Contingency $283 $0.90 $/ton processed
Total $3,111
Sulfide material mineral recoveries of: 90.2% for copper, 80.4% for silver, and 71.0% for
gold
Heap leach mineral recoveries of: 75% for oxide material copper and 60% for transition
material copper
Leach recovery delay as follows: 60% of the final recovery duri ng the first year on the
heap, 30% recovered in the second year on the heap, and 10% rec overed during the third
year on the heap
Sensitivity Analysis
GRE evaluated the after-tax NPV@7% sensitivity to changes in copper price, copper grade, capital
costs, and operating costs. The results indicate that the after -tax NPV@7% is most sensitive to
copper price and copper grade a nd moderately sensitive to opera ting cost and capital cost (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Moonlight-Superior Project NPV@7% Sensitivity to Varying Copper Price,
Copper Grade, Capital Costs, and Operating Costs
Conclusions and Next Steps
GRE concluded that the project economics in the PEA are favorab le, providing positive NPV
values at varying copper prices, copper grade, capital costs, and operating costs.
The QPs recommend the following Phase 1 items and budget (inclusive of contingency) to advance
Table 6: NPV@7% and IRR at Specific Copper Prices
$4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50
NPV@7% $935 $1,394 $1,847 $2,291
IRR 21% 27% 32% 37%
Copper PriceParameter
the Moonlight-Superior Copper project towards production.
A comprehensive metallurgical test program is recommended to fully evaluate the potential of heap
leach treatment for oxide and transition materials. This progra m should include bottle roll leach
tests in conjunction with column leach tests. The variables that should be examined include grade,
resource spatial distribution, mineralogy, and particle size. Additionally, these tests should include
both conventional acid leaching and bioleaching. Additionally, flotation testing should be
conducted on the sulfide material s examining variables includin g grade, resource spatial
distribution, mineralogy, grind size and locked cycle flotation cleaning tests.
For exploration, the QPs recomme nd a drilling program on the or der of 5,000 to 10,000 feet to
outline additional resources.
The scope and objectives of a Phase 2 program would be contingent upon positive results from the
Phase 1 program. For the purposes of conceptual level planning, i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t a P h a s e 2
program would consist of a nomin al $25 million program that wou ld include an expanded
exploration drill program to upgrade resources to reserves and engineering and economics studies
that would result in a Pre-feasibility Study.
The PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too
speculative geologically to have t he economic considerations ap plied to them that would enable
them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves under CIM Definition Standards. Readers are advised
that there is no certainty that the results projected in this preliminary economic assessment will be
realized.
Further details of the Preliminary Economic Assessment NI43-101 Technical Report on th e
Moonlight-Superior Project, Plum as County, California, USA with an effective date of
December 16, 2024 can be found on Sedar+ at sedarplus.ca or at the Company’s website at
www.uscoppercorp.com.
Qualified Persons
The scientific and technical content of this press release has been reviewed and approved by
George Cole, M.Sc., Director of US Copper who is a “Qualified P erson” as defined in NI 43-101
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. George Cole is a Registered Professional Geologist
through AIPG (CPG-11687).
Terre Lane, Principal Mining Engineer, Global Resource Engineering, is an independent Qualified
Person as defined by NI43-101 and has reviewed and approved the contents of this news release
that relate to the Mineral Resource estimate, mine plan, mine capital and operating cost estimation,
and financial analysis.
Table 7: Estimated Costs to Complete the Phase 1 Work Program
Exploration Cost Area Total
Exploration Drilling $5,000,000
Metallurgical Testing $400,000
Permitting $500,000
Total $5,900,000
About US Copper Corp
US Copper controls approximately 10 square miles of patented an d unpatented federal mining
claims in the Light’s Creek Copper District in Plumas County, NE California; essentially, the entire
District. The District contains s ubstantial copper (silver) sul fide and copper oxide resources in
three deposits – Moonlight, Superior and Engels, as well as sev eral partially tested and untested
exploration targets.
The Superior and Engels Mines operated from about 1915 to 1930 producing over 161 million
pounds of copper from over 4 million tons of rock containing 2. 2% copper with silver and gold
credits.
The Moonlight deposit was discove red by Placer Amex during the 1960s and a resource was
calculated after the drilling of over 400 holes. A development decision was made but then put on
hold in 1972 when copper prices were weak. US Copper has owned the project since 2013 and has
advanced the project with three different drill programs and a number of engineering studies.
Further details can be found on both the Company’s website at www.uscoppercorp.com a n d
SEDAR+ at sedarplus.ca under the US Copper Corp profile.
For Further Information Contact:
Mr. Stephen Dunn, President, CEO and Director, US Copper Corp ( 416) 361-2827 or email
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 press release.
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable Canadian and U.S. securities
laws and regulations, including statements regarding th e future activities of the Company. Forward-looking
statements reflect the current beliefs and expectations of management and are identified by the use of words including
“will”, “hopes”, “anticipates”, “expected to”, “plans”, “p lanned”, “intends” and other similar words. Actual
results may differ significantly. The achievement of the resu lts expressed in forward-looking statements is subject to
a number of risks, including those described in the Company’s management discussion and analysis as filed with the
Canadian securities regulatory authorities which are available at www.sedarplus.ca. Investors are cautioned not to
place undue reliance upon forward-looking statements.