PROJECT SURVEY 2013

E&Mfs Annual Survey of Global

Mining Investment
Last year's survey questioned whether the long boom in mining investment was
starting to fade, or just experiencing a temporary market adjustment. This year's
verdict: the boom has peaked.
By Magnus Ericsson and Viktoriya Larsson
The investment boom in the global mining sector slowed down dur-
ing 2012. The annual growth rate of the project pipeline was only
9% in 2012 compared with 20% and 2 1 % in 2011 and 2010. The
number of projects in the pipeline even decreased between 2011
and 2012only by 1%, but marking the end of a continuous
increase over the past years. The slowdown, which continued
throughout the year but accelerated in the last quarter, has includ-
ed a number of project deferrals such as the postponement of the
high-profile $8-billion Olympic Dam project by BHP Billiton. Other
examples are the Prioskolskoye iron ore project and the Sukhoi Log
gold project, both in Russia; Grupo Mexico's El Arco copper project
in Mexico; Vale's Vermelho nickel project in Brazil; and others.
During 2012, 130 new mining projects with an estimated total
cost of $47 billion were registered in Raw Materials Group's (RMG)
Raw Materials Data Metals (RMD Metals) 'Mines/Projects' database.
Project investment in 2012 was considerably lower than in 2011,
when the number of new projects registered was 165 with an esti-
mated total investment cost of $110 billion. The final figures for
2012 will most likely increase somewhat as a number of projects
from the end of 2012 will only be registered in the database early
in 2013. This correction has been as much as 15%-20% in some
years, but most probably will be less than that this year. Although it
is too early to draw any detailed conclusions it is clear that the peak
in investments in the present cycle has been reached and we will
most likely see a slight decline in investment activities in 2013.
However, this decline will not represent the start of a long-term
trend. Mining and mining investments have always been and will
remain cyclical businesses, and RMG remains optimistic for the
long-term outlook of the sector. Population growth, urbanization
and general economic development in the emerging economies
are still positive and provide a strong base for continued growth in
metal demand and hence the need for increased mine production
and for new investment projects.
Economic Weakness, Lower Expectations
As 2012 drew to a close, the total value of announced investment
in the project pipeline of the global mining industry was $735 bil-
lion, as registered in the RMD Metals 'Mines/Projects' database.
The deepening financial crisis in Europe and the slow recovery in
North America seem to have slowed growth in 2012. Metal prices
during the past year have, on the whole, not performed badly, with
gold prices higher than in 2011, copper and iron ore on slightly
lower levels while nickel and zinc have been trending downward
for about two years.
Industry expectations for 2013 are cautious and might have
depressed investments toward the end of the past year. The num-
ber of projects announced in the third and fourth quarters of 2012
is down compared with both the first half of the year and the
same two quarters in 2011. However, it is important to remember:
1) there is always a delay in reporting new projects; and 2) this
analysis is based only on figures captured up to late November/
early December.
The upward trend of increased project costs, highlighted in the
2011 survey, continued in 2012. We previously noted that many
projects have been enlarged in both announced cost and capacity
when moving from the feasibility to the construction phase and
this tendency continues. Of all of the gold projects in this year's
list, 10 experienced cost increases totaling more than $8 billion,
from an original total of $15.4 billion. The average increase was
54%. Only one project managed to cut its cost, by a marginal 5%.
Six projects are new to the list and no comparison is possible.
Project cost increases are not entirely due to increasing unit
costs but also to rapid growth in metal demand. Other important
cost drivers include more complex ore bodies, deeper lying deposits
with lower grades and increasingly remote locations of new mines.
Equipment prices and construction costs are increasing and many
equipment suppliers are working at near full capacity. Problems
caused by lack of experienced mining staff, which disappeared in
2009 and 2010, have re-emerged although not at the same seri-
ous level as in late 2007 and early 2008. In some regi ons-
Western Australia, for examplerecruitment of staff has become a
serious problem and salary and wage levels are getting out of hand.
The number of projects at the feasibility stage has increased
strongly, to 28% of total investment. This growth is to be expect-
ed given the high numbers of new projects announced in 2010
and 2011, which now have matured and evolved to the next stage
in the development process. At the same time, the number of pro-
jects at the conceptual and pre-feasibility stages has decreased
because of a drop in new, early-stage projects, reflecting the
declining investment appetite and increasing financial problems
Mining Project Investment Pipeline, 2012
[Greenfield Projects
Early Stages
Conceptual &
Prefeasibility
Feasibility
Construction
Brownfield Projects
[ A U Stages
TOTA L
Investment
(xU S$B)
Share
(Percent)
Share Trend
(2011 to 2012)
269
204
82
37
28
11
180
735
24
100
t
S o u r c e : A l l l a b t e d a t a p r o v i d e d t i y R a w Ma t e r i a l s D a t a , S t o c k h o l m , S w e d e n , D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 .
28 E&MJ JANUARY 2013
www.e-mj.com
PROJECT SURVEY 2013
of the junior companies that initiate most of these projects. This
will likely cause some problems in the future, as there will not be
enough conceptual- or prefeasibility-stage projects in the pipeline
to meet the inevitable rising demand for metal.
The share of projects at the construction stage increased mar-
ginally compared with 2011. However, the investment value of
this sector grew strongly in 2012. The average cost of projects
under construction In 2012 was $930 milliona large difference
from the average of $645 million in 2011. The same situation is
noticeable for brownfield projects, although for those the average
project cost is generally much lower, at $450 million, than for a
greenfield project.
It is difficult to accurately monitor the progress of brownfield
projects from project studies to construction because they are often
carried out internally and quickly, without public disclosure. Thus,
the total investment figure for projects under construction is un-
doubtedly an underestimate, particularly for this project category.
All of this year's survey statistics are based on projects with an
announced investment estimate. The RMD Metals database also
includes approximately 1,900 projectsmostly in the conceptual
stagefor which no investment figure has been announced. The
investment total for all mining projects, including projects for
which no investment estimate has been published, is therefore
larger than the $735 billion recorded at the end of 2011but it
is difficult to estimate how much larger. If it is assumed that the
projects without published investment estimates have a similar
cost structure to those projects whose costs are known, the total
figure would increase considerably. It could, however, also be
argued that unannounced-project costs are lower, as most mega-
projects are conducted by public companies that must publicly
disclose all significant expenditures. If this is indeed the case, the
total figure would be smaller. Projects involving metals not covered
in this survey but included in the database also represent a spe-
cific investment total but one that is estimated at a much lower
level than the major metals represented in the survey
Given the continued strong metal demand from China, India
and other emerging economies, RMG expects metal prices to mild-
ly decline in 2013 before possibly rising again in 2014.
Many of the early stage projects included in this year's total
investment figure will not pass from the conceptual study phase to
the construction stage for a number of reasons. However, histori-
cally RMG has observed that 60%-75% of all projects announced
will materialize during a three-year period.
I ron Ore Grabs a Bigger Share
As in previous years iron ore, copper, gold and nickel, in that order,
are the largest investment targets for mining companies. These
four metals account for 86% of the total project pipeline, a small
increase from 84% in 2011. They also dominate the mining busi-
ness in terms of total value of its output, which for these metals
only is $606 billion or 7 1 % of the total value of all mine produc-
tion of metals during 2011.
Iron ore project investment remains firmly in the top spot, as it
has since 2010, and even increased its share in 2012 with a pro-
ject pipeline of $245 billion; while copper, in second place,
accounted for $200 billion. Gold and nickel are at much lower lev-
els ($125 billion and $60 billion respectively), followed by a sig-
nificant drop to the $15-$25 billion level where uranium,
lead/zinc and the PGMs, in that order, are to be found. The aver-
age iron ore project demands an investment of $1.24 billion
Mining Project Investment by Metal, 2012
Iron ore
Copper
Gold
Nickel
Uranium
Lead/zinc
PGMs
Diamonds
Silver
Other
Total
Investment Total
(US$ billion)
245
200
125
60
25
17
16
9
8
00
735
Share
(Percent)
34
27
17
8
4
2
2
1
1
6
100
Share Trend
(2011 to 2012)
t
4-
i

4-
more than four times the average investment cost of gold projects,
at $304 millionwhile average copper and nickel project costs
are $816 million and $777 million, respectively.
The project grovrth rate for iron ore and gold both decreased con-
siderably in 2012, dropping to 14% and 13%, respectively, from
201 l's rate of 33% and 34%. The growth rate of the gold pipeline
had started to recover in 2011 after a weak year ih 2010, which had
a growth rate of only 11%. New gold projects in 2012 totaled $14 bil-
lion compared with $28 billion in 2011 and only $7 billion in 2010.
Given gold's on-going high price, these swings are difficult to explain.
The iron ore sector had only $13 billion of new investment
enter the pipeline in 2012 compared with $53 billion in 2011,
while copper's $10 billion of new investment in 2012 fell well
below 201 l's $24 billion.
Gold's per-project investment, on average, is relatively small but
the number of gold projects is high. In 2012, 64 new gold projects
were announcednot at all surprising considering the record high
gold prices of 2012compared with 53 in 2011. A total of 16
new iron ore projects and 21 new copper projects also were
announced in 2012, compared with 21 new iron ore and 24 new
copper projects in 2011. It is obvious that copper is the metal that
has done best in terms of the number of new projects in 2012.
Somewhat surprisingly the number of new nickel projects
increased in 2012 after a downturn in 2011, with six new projects
announced at a total investment of $3.7 billion. The rare earths con-
tinued to attract interest after a slowdown in 2011 as well: eight new
projects at a total of $3.6 billion were announced. If all of them are
carried through to construction an over-supply situation will quickly
develop. Also unexpected was a revival of interest in silver during
2012, with six new projects at a total announced investment of $1.2
billion. Lead/zinc, uranium and PGMs continued to decline in 2012,
with only one, three and two new projects announced, respectively.
Latin America Still No. 1
Latin America remained in top position in 2012 with a 29% share
of the global investment pipeline, which is below its highest previ-
ous share of 32% in 2010. North America is the only region show-
ing strong, continuous growth for the past three years, up from 15%
in 2010 to 20% in 2012, with total investment value rising from
$86 billion in 2010 to $146 billion in 2012. Africa's share of total
mining project investment was down slightly to 14%, but increased
in value to $106 billion. Europe, including all of Russia, main-
tained its position but Asia's share fell from 11% to 10%; Asia
reached its peak of 14% in 2009 but has been falling since.
The investment pipeline in North America grew by $24 billion
in 2012, and in Oceania by $8 billion, a considerably slower pace
viMW.e-mj.com
JANUARY 2013 E&MJ 29
PROJECT SURVEY 2013
Mining Project Investment by Region, 2012
Africa
Asia
Europe
Latin America
North America
Oceania
TOTAL
Investment
(US$ hiUion)
106
75
77
210
146
121
735
Share
(Percent)
14
10
10
29
18
17
100
Share Trend
(2011 to 2012)
i
I
t
t
<-*
than the previous year. Latin America's project pipeline shows the
highest average of all because there are more super large projects
in this region than in any of the others. The average project invest-
ment within the Latin America sector is $730 million, more than
twice Asia's average of $363 million. The other regions fall
between these two extremes; Europe, $450 million; Africa, $541
million; North America, $681 million; and Oceania, $583 mil-
lion, respectively
In Europe (excluding Russia), focus is increasingly on the
Nordic countries, including Finland, Sweden and Greenland.
Sweden has maintained its position among the top 20 countries.
Finland is likely to move up the list, as Anglo American has
announced that its Sakatti copper/nickel/PGM early-stage project
is among the most promising greenfield finds made by the com-
pany globally in 20 years. In addition. Gold Fields has revitalized
its Arctic platinum project in northern Finland.
The European Oonimission's renewed interest in the mining sec-
tor has not resulted in any notable improvements in Europe's invest-
ment climate, despite the Raw Materials Initiative having been in
place for several years. In Africa, the African Union has decided to
establish the Africa Mineral Development Oenter in Addis Ababa,
the capital city of Ethiopia, to support the implementation of the
African Mining Vision. The World Bank has announced plans to
spend $1 billion on mapping and exploration for metals and miner-
als in Africa, which would give this underexplored region a boost.
Asia's problems are clearly highlighted by the continuing uncertain-
ty surrounding Mongolia's Oyu Tolgoi copper project, which has
been delayed several times due to the government's on-going insis-
tence on renegotiating the project's mine agreement.
Investors Wary of Resource Nationalism,
Unstable Environments
The total investment pipeline share of the 10 most attractive
countries was static in 2012 at 71% , identical to 2011. Australia
and Oanada continue to dominate both in terms of capex volumes
and number of projects. Together, they account for more than
$200 billion, divided among 326 projects.
Although the promise of "spreading mining investments more
evenly across the globe" has been mentioned in the previous three
project surveys, it has become clear that only a small number of
countries continue to attract the largest share of the investments.
The growing trend of resource nationalism is most certainly a key
reason for this trend. Oountries that are perceived as offering a sta-
ble political and economic environment receive growing attention.
The United States has improved its share at a faster rate than any
other country between 2010 and 2011, garnering a 38% share in
2011 and 34% in 2012. Ohile is another example, with growth
during 2011 and 2012 at 20% and 27%, respectively Australia,
Oanada and the U.S accounted for 34% of the total project
pipeline at the end of 2011. In December 2012, their combined
share remained at the same level despite a slight decline by
Australia, which was compensated by strong U.S. growth.
Australia has kept its standing as one of the most attractive
countries for mining investments despite concerns anticipated by
the introduction of its "super profit" tax, the final promulgated ver-
sion of which was a much weaker version of the original proposal.
Iron ore projects continue to dominate, and of the top 20 projects
in Australia 15 are in iron ore and all of them demand investments
of over $1 billion each. Second-ranked Oanada has a much broad-
er mix of projects including several gold and base metal projects
among the top 20 with seven iron ore projects as well as six gold
projects, two copper projects, two nickel projects, one diamond
project and one niobium project on the list. The pipeline value of
projects in both countries is more than $100 billion.
There was little change in ranking of the Top 10 countries in
2012; in fact, the only change was Guinea moving up from ninth
position from tenth, replacing the Philippines. Brazil's mining
investment total, which fell in 2011, rebounded in 2012 to its
2010 ranking with more than $50 billion in project funding.
Russia, at 5% grew its investment share at a slower pace than
most of the Top 10 countries, and the volume of investments in
the South African pipeline declined by 7% or $23 billion, under-
scoring the problems the country has experienced during past
years; calls from the ruling ANO party's Youth League for national-
ization of the mining sector have had an impact on international
investors' perception of the country. Meanwhile, Guinea continued
its upward progress despite a slight drop in the $16 billion invest-
ment total for its three giant iron ore projects.
Below the Top 10 cutoff are Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Sierra
Leone, Argentina, Indonesia, Ohina, Sweden, Republic of the Oongo,
Oameroon and Kazakhstan in that order, each with a portfolio of pro-
jects between $8-$15 billion. (Please note that an error in the 2012
project survey text made incorrect reference in this context to the
Democratic Republic of the Oongo (DR Oongo) instead of Republic of
the Oongo). The giant Zanaga iron ore project has propelled this
Oentral African country to such a high ranking, an example of how
just the start or completion of one large project can significantly alter
the ranking of smaller countries relative to others in the survey
In Sierra Leone, for example, one new project during 2012
added more than $6 billion to its country total, illustrating that not
a lot of importance should be associated with a country's rank out-
side the top 10. The investment figure for Ohina, it should be
noted, is most certainly an underestimate since many of the pro-
jects run by state-owned companies are never reported in such a
way that they reach the international mining press. Ohinese pro-
jects are generally lower in project value at an average cost of
Mining Project Investment by Country, 2012
Australia
Canada
ChUe
Brazil
Russia
Peru
United States
South Africa
Guinea
Philippines
TOTAL
Investment
(US$ bUlion)
105
104
96
52
48
44
43
23
16
15
519
Share
(Percent)
14
14
9
7
7
6
5
3
2
2
71
Rank in
2011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
9
30 E&MJ JANUARY 2013 vi/ww.e-mj.com
PROJECT SURVEY 2013
$181 million; while in Canada, for example, the average project tion. It will take years before Chinese companies become powerful
cost is $775 million.
Chinese mining investment activity outside China remains most-
ly marginal. China's scramble for resources in Australia, Africa and
elsewhere involves minimal investment values despite rapid growth
in recent yearsbut it is growth from an almost 'zero' starting posi-
global players in the mining industry, but it will eventually happen.
Magnus Ericsson is CEO and a director of Raw Materiais Group
and a profesor at Sweden's Luie University of Tecfmoiogy.
Viiitoriya Larsson is a researcii anaiyst at RMG.
About This Survey
E&MJ's annual review of metal mining projects is compiled from Ravu
Materials Group's Rav Materials Projects database (see demo at
www.rmg.se). The full database is available from RMG on an annual sub-
scription basis and includes more than 4,400 projects as of December
2012, ranging from those in the prefeasibility stage to those currently
under construction. Of the total number of projects listed in the database,
more than 1,300 include detailed descriptions of resources/reserves,
grades, planned investment cost, and completion date.
This survey includes all countries with known projects. In the process
chain from ore to metal, its main focus is on the mining stage. Pure smelter
projects are not listed. In some cases, however, where the process is fully
integrated from mining to refining, such as acid pressure leach hydromet-
allurgical nickel projects, all stages are included.
Eligibility for a full listing requires each project to have an announced
investment cost estimate, reserve/resource data and an estimated annual pro-
duction figure. Comparability of information from different companies, coun-
tries and regions varies, as specific project information or definition may be
unclear for various reasons, or the project may also involve large unreported
infrastructure costs. Raw Materials Group attempts to resolve these factors, but
cannot rectify all discrepancies arising from definitions and comparability.
Information contained in the survey is global in scope. However, it
should be noted that completely accurate coverage of some regions is dif-
ficult to attain due to lack of information or corporate reporting standards
and requirements. In total, mine projects are included from more than 70
countries and the survey's aggregate figures are considered to reflect over-
all investment trends in the mining industry reasonably accurately. For
more information, visit www.rmg.se or call +46-8-7440055.
Major Mining Investment Projects Worldwide, Year End 2012
Project Name location Status Type Products Controlled by Project Cost (US$M)
L liOln
Pascua-L ama
Cerro Csale
Donlin Creek
KSM
Galore Creek
Dome Mountain
Caspiche
Metates
Tasiast
Olimpiada
Davidson-Blackviiater
Livengood
Courageous Lake
Eleonore
Rosia Montana
Konevinskoye
Natalka
Detour Lake
South Deep
Bakyrchik
Bystrinskoye
Bloemhoek
Hycroft Crofoot/Lewis
Golden Meadows
Prosperity Fish Lake
Meliadine
S panish Mountain
Cerro Negro
Panimba
Brisas
Jiama
Tropicana
Fruta del Norte
Lobo/Marte
Akyem
Lihir
Rainy River
Morelos
Angostura
Kiaka
Chile
Chile
USA
Canada
Canada
Canada
Chile
Mexico
Mauritania
Russia
Canada
USA
Canada
Canada
Romania
Russia
Russia
Canada
South Africa
Kazakhstan
Russia
South Africa
USA
USA
Canada
Canada
Canada
Argentina
Russia
Venezuela
China
Australia
Ecuador
Chile
Ghana
Papua New Guinea
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Burkina Faso
Construction OP
Prefeasibility OP
Feasibility OP
Feasibility OP
Prefeasibility OP
(Susp.) restart/feasibility UG
Prefeasibility OP
Prefeasibility UG
Operating, exp/constr OP
Operating, expansion/plans OP
Conceptual OP
Conceptual OP
Prefeasibility OP
Construction UG
Feasibility OP
Operating, expansion/plans OP
(Susp.) restart/construction OP
Construction OP
Operating, expansion/plans OP, UG
(Susp.) restart/feasibility OP, UG
Feasibility OP
Feasibility UG
Operating, expansion/feasibility OP
Closed, reopen/plans OP
Feasibility OP
Prefeasibility OP, UG
Prefeasibility OP
Feasibility UG
Conceptual OP
Feasibility OP
Operating, exp/feasib OP, UG
Construction OP
Prefeasibility OP
Prefeasibility OP
Feasibility OP
Operating, expansion/plans OP
Conceptual OP, UG
Feasibility OP
Prefeasibility OP, UG
Prefeasibility OP
Au, Ag Barrick
Au, Ag B arrick, Kinross Gold
Au B arrick, NovaGold
Au, Cu Seabridge
Au, Ag NovaGold, Teck
Au Metal Mountain
Au, Ag Exeter Resource
Au, Ag Chesapeake
Au Kinross Gold
Au PolyusGold Inter
Au, Ag New Gold Inc
Au, Ag IntI Tower Hill
Au Seabridge
Au Goldcorp
Au, Ag Gabriel Resources
Au Vertex, Rusfinansgrup
Au PolyusGold Inter
Au Detour Gold
Au Gold Fields
Au Rio Tinto
Au, Cu Norilsk Nickel
Au Wits Gold
Au, Ag Allied Nevada
Au Vista Gold
Au, Cu Taseko
Au Agnico-Eagle
Au, Ag Spanish Mountain
Au Goldcorp
Au PolyusGold Inter
Au, Cu Gold Reserve
Au, Cu CNGC
Au Anglogold, Independence
Au, Ag Kinross Gold
Au Kinross Gold
Au Newmont Mining
Au Newcrest
Au, Ag Rainy River Resources
Au Torex Gold
Au, Ag Eco Oro
Au Volta
8,000
6,000
5,845
5,312
5,208
4,187
2,800
2,701
2,700
2,500
1,800
1,614
1,520
1,414
1,400
1,400
1,200
1,157
1,156
1,124
1,100
1,000
985
879
807
793
756
750
739
731
705
702
700
700
700
696
680
675
649
610
LCopper
Andina Chile Operating, exp/constr OP, UG Cu, Mo
Cobre Panam Panama Feasibility OP Cu, Au
Ouebrada Blanca Chile Operating, exp/constr OP Cu
Tampakan Philippines Feasibility OP Cu, Au
Udokan Russia Prefeasibility OP Cu, Ag
Golpu Papua New Guinea Prefeasibility OP Cu, Au
OyuTolgoi Mongolia Construction OP Cu, Au
Pebble USA Feasibility OP, UG Cu,Au
Las Bambas Peru Feasibility OP Cu
Cerro Verde Peru Operating, expansion/plans OP Cu
El Morro Chile Feasibility OP Cu, Au
Codeico
Inmet
Teck
X strata, Indopbil Resources
Metalloinvest
Harmony, Newcrest
Rio U nto, State of Mongolia
Anglo American, North Dynasty
X strata
FCX, SMM, Buenaventura
Goldcorp, New Gold
6,400
6,181
5,600
5,200
5,000
4,845
4,600
4,500
4,200
4,000
3,900
www.e-mj.com JANUARY 2013 E&MJ 31
PROJECT SURVEY 2013
Project Name
Chuquicamata
Escondida
Ministro Hales
Grasberg/Ertsberg
El Teniente
Resolution
Reko Diq
Caserones
Schaft Creek
Aynak
Sierra Gorda
Los Azules
Haquira
Cumo
Frieda River
La Granja
Caleo
CollahuasI
Salobo
Quellaveco
Toromocho
Casino
Agua Rica
Aktogay
Kamoa
El Pachn
I Iron lire
Lac Otelnuk
Timir
Simandou
Serra Sul
Minas Rio [MMX]
Zanaga
SIno/Balmoral Central
Tonkolili
Mbalam
Kalia
Balmoral South
Jack Hills
KeMag
Cape Lambert
Vetria
Cerro Ccopane
JImblebar
Pampa de Pongo
Solomon
Extension Hill
Nkout
Tonkolili
Northern System [Carajas]
Southdown
Hawson
Hopes Advance
West Pilbara - Mt. Stuart
LabMag
1 Nickel
Weda Bay
Koniambo
Voisey's Bay
Kalgoorlle [Heron]
Marlborough [Gladstone]
Mindoro
WIngellina
Mount Margaret
Honeymoon Well
Goongarrie
Araguaia [Lara]
Ramu
Turnagain
Rnnbcken
Yerilla
Gag Island
Dumont
Talnakhskoye
Fenix
Mindoro
location
Chile
Chile
Chile
Indonesia
Chile
USA
Pakistan
Chile
Canada
Afghanistan
Chile
Argentina
Peru
USA
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Peru
Chile
Brazil
Peru
Peru
Canada
Argentina
Kazakhstan
Congo (Dem Rep)
Argentina
Canada
Russia
Guinea
Brazil
Brazil
Congo (Brazzav)
Australia
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Guinea
Australia
Australia
Canada
Australia
Brazil
Peru
Australia
Peru
Australia
Australia
Cameroon
Sierra Leone
Brazil
Australia
Australia
Canada
Australia
Canada
Indonesia
New Caledonia
Canada
Australia
Australia
Philippines
Australia
Australia
Australia
Australia
Brazil
Papua New Guinea
Canada
Sweden
Australia
Indonesia
Canada
Russia
Guatemala
Philippines
3 2 E& M J J A N UA R Y 2 01 3
Status
Operating, expansion/feasibility
Operating, exp/constr
Construction
Operating, expansion/plans
Operating, exp/constr
Prefeasibility
Feasibility
Construction
Prefeasibility
Closed, reopen/feasibility
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Conceptual
Prefeasibility
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Prefeasibility
Operating, exp/feasib
Construction
Feasibility
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Conceptual
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Conceptual
Prefeasibility
Construction
Construction
Prefeasibility
Construction
Operating, expansion/plans '
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Operating, exp/constr
Feasibility
Feasibility
Operating, expansion/plans
Conceptual
Operating, exp/constr
Conceptual
Construction
Feasibility
Conceptual
Operating, expansion/plans
Operating, exp/constr
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Conceptual
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Construction
Operating, exp/constr
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Conceptual
Construction
Conceptual
Prefeasibility
Prefeasibility
Feasibility
Prefeasibility
Operating, expansion/plans
Feasibility
Feasibility
Type
OP
OP
OP
OP,UG
UG
UG
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP, UG
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
UG
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP .
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP,UG
OP
OP
Products
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Au
Cu, Mo
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Au
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu, Mo
Cu, Mo
Cu, Au
Cu, Au
Cu, Au
Cu
Cu, Mo
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
Ni, Co
Ni
Ni, Cu
NI, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Co
Ni, Cu
Ni
Ni, Co
Controlled by - Project Cost (US$ M)
Codeico
BHP Billilon, Rio Tinto, Mitsubishi, JX Nippon, Mitsub Materials
Codeico
FCX
Codeico
Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton Gr
Antofagasta, Barrick, Gov't. of Balochlstan
JX Nippon Mining, Mitsui Mining
Copper Fox, Teck
MCC, Jiangxi Copper
KGHM, SMM
McEwen
First Quantum
Mosquito Cons
Xstrata
Rio Tinto
Minmetals, Jiangxi Copper
Anglo American, Xstrata, Mitsui, JX Nippon Mining
Vale
Anglo American
Chinaico
Western Copper
Yamana
Kazakhmys pic
Ivanhoe Capital
Xstrata
Wugang, Adriana
Airosa
Rio Tinto, Chinaico
Vale
Anglo American
Xstrata, ZIOC
Citic Pacific
African Minerals, Shandong I&S
Sundance Resources
Bellzone
Clive Palmer
Mitsubishi
Tata Steel
MCC
ALL, Vetorlal, Triunfo
Cuervo Resources
BHP Billiton
Nanjinzhao
FMG
Shougang
Afferro Mining
African Minerals, Shandong I&S
Vale
Grange, Sojitz Corp
Carpentaria, BMG
Oceanic
AMCI, Aquila,Cullen
Tata Steel
State of France, Mitsubishi
Sud Pacifique, Xstrata
Vale
Heron Resources
OLD Nickel
Intex
Metals X
Glencore
Norilsk Nickel
Heron Resources
Teck
MCC
Hard Creek Ni
IGE
Heron Resources
Antam
Royal Nickel
Norilsk Nickel
Solway
Intex
3,828
3,800
3,500
3,175
3,039
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,892
2,890
2,877
2,851
2,824
2,800
2,570
2,500
2,500
2,400
2,337
2,200
2,150
2,150
2,055
2,000
2,000
1,900
1
13,032
10,000
10,000
8,039
8,000
7,545
6,207
5,000
4,686
4,300
3,968
3,809
3,800
3,765
3,700
3,500
3,400
3,280
3,200
3,053
3,000
3,000
2,968
2,936
2,887
2,850
2,813
2,750
1
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,574
3,400
2,455
2,269
2,035
1,506
1,443
1,383
1,370
1,319
1,260
1,200
1,160
1,099
1,000
984
960
w w w . e - m j . c o m
PROJECT SURVEY 2013
Nonoc
N u n a v i k
M a y a n i q u e l
A g a ta N o rth
C anegrass
i PG M s
B a f o k e n g S t y l d r i f t
Ferguson Lake
Tw ickenham
B a k u b u n g
S h e b a 's Ridge
A f p l a t s
Sedibelo W est
G a r a t a u
A k a n a n i
Fedorova Tundra
I m p a l a
I m p a l a
Booysendal
W estern Bushveld Project 1
A r c t i c
1 Silver
K o n i m a n s u r i Kalon
N a v i d a d
P i t a r r i l l a
Cordero
Corani
B r u c e j a c k
LDiamonds
Venetia
Argyle
Star
V e r k h o t i n a / G r i b
Renard
C u l l i n a n
Gahcho Kue
Jwaneng
E k a t i
Letseng
L iq h o b o n g [ M a i n ]
1 Uranium
Viken
Elkonskoye
Im ouraren
K va n e fje ld
Rossing South [ H u s a b ]
K hiagdinskoye
C ig a r Lake
M i c h e l i n
Eta n go
R oughrider
Eco Ridge
I Z i n c
M e h d i a b a d
D u g a l d River
Ozernoye
A d m i r a l Bay
Selwyn
B a h u e r a c h i
G arpenberg
Izok Lake
C itro n e n
Terrazas
H i l a r i n
A sm ara Gold Project
Oued Am izour
H a c k e t t River
M c A rth u r River
Aecha
Tulsequah Chief
George Fisher North
Z h a i r e m Dalnezapadny
Lom bador
Yukon
D a i r i
w w w . e - m j . c o m
P h i l i p p i n e s
Canada
G u a te m a la
P h i l i p p i n e s
A u s t r a l i a
South A f r i c a
Canada
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
Russia
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
South A f r i c a
F i n l a n d
T a d j i k i s t a n
A r g e n t i n a
Mexico
Mexico
Peru
Canada
South A f r i c a
A u s t r a l i a
Canada
Russia
Canada
South A f r i c a
Canada
Botswana
Canada
Lesotho
Lesotho
Sweden
Russia
Niger
Greenland
N a m i b i a
Russia
Canada
Canada
N a m i b i a
Canada
Canada
Iran
A u s t r a l i a
Russia
A u s t r a l i a
Canada
Mexico
Sweden
Canada
G reenland
Mexico
Peru
E ritrea
A lg e r ia
Canada
A u s t r a l i a
Peru
Canada
A u s t r a l i a
K azakhstan
P o r t u g a l
Canada
Indonesia
(Susp.) r e s t a r t / f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n s t r u c t i o n
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p a n s i o n / p l a n s
C o n s t r u c t i o n
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
F e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / c o n s t r
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / c o n s t r
C o n s t r u c t i o n
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / f e a s i b
O p e r a t i n g , e x p /c o n s tr
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p a n s i o n / p l a n s
F e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / f e a s i b
O p e r a t i n g , e x p a n s i o n / p l a n s
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / f e a s i b
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
C o n s t r u c t i o n
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p a n s i o n / p l a n s
C o n s t r u c t i o n
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
Closed, r e o p e n / p l a n s
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
C o n s t r u c t i o n
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n c e p t u a l
C o n c e p t u a l
O p e r a t i n g , e x p a n s i o n / p l a n s
F e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / c o n s t r
C o n c e p t u a l
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
O p e r a t i n g , e x p / f e a s i b
(Susp.) r e s t a r t / p l a n s
F e a s i b i l i t y
P r e f e a s i b i l i t y
C o n s t r u c t i o n
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
UG
OP, UG
UG
UG
OP
UG
OP
UG
UG
UG
UG
UG
UG
UG
OP
UG
OP
OP, UG
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP, UG
UG
OP
OP
OP,UG
OP
OP
OP
ISL
ISL
OP
OP
ISL
UG
OP, UG
OP
OP
UG
OP
UG
OP
UG
OP
OP
UG
OP
UG
OP
UG
OP
UG
OP, UG
OP
OP
UG
UG
UG
UG
OP, UG
UG
N i , Co
N i , C u
N i , Co
N i , Co
Ni
P t , P d
P d , C u
P t , P d
R , P d
R , P d
P t , P d
P t , P d
P t , P d
Pt, Pd
Pd, Pt
Pt, Pd
Pt, Pd
Pt, Pd
Pt, Pd
P d , R
A g , P b
A g , P b
Ag
A g , Pb
A g , P b
A g , Au
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
Dia
u,v
U
U
U, REO
U
U
U
U
U
U
U, REO
Z n , Pb
Z n , Pb
Z n , Pb
Z n , Pb
Z n , Pb
Z n , Ag
Z n , Ag
Z n , P b
Z n , Pb
Z n , Cu
Z n , Pb
Z n , Cu
Z n , P b
Z n , Ag
Z n , P b
Z n , P b
Z n , Ag
Z n , P b
Z n , Pb
Zn
Zn
Z n , Pb
P b i l n i c o
J i l i n Haorong, N earctic Nickel
A n f i e l d
M indoro Res
Nickelore
Royal B afokeng N a t i o n , Anglo A m e r i c a n
S t a r f i e l d
Anglo A m e rica n
JNMC, Anglo A m e r i c a n
Aquarius, Anglo Am erican, State of South Africa
I m p l a t s
P a l l i n g h u r s t Res
Nkwe
L o n m i n , Shanduka
B a r r i c k
I m p l a t s
I m p l a t s
N ortham
PGM L t d , JNMC, Anglo A m e r i c a n
Gold Fields
S ta te of T a d j i k i s t a n
Pan Am Silver
Silver S t a n d a r d
Levon Resources
Bear Creek Mg
Silver S t a n d a r d
Anglo A m e r i c a n , Ponahalo
Rio Tinto
Shore Gold
L u k o i l - N o r t h w e s t
Stornoway Diam
Petra D ia m o n d s
Anglo A m e r i c a n , M o u n t a i n Prov
Anglo A m e r i c a n , S ta te of B o tsw a n a
BHP B i l l i t o n
Gem D i a m o n d s , S ta te of Lesotho
Firestone D i a m o n , S ta te of Lesotho
Cont Precious
Atom energoprom OJSC
Areva, S ta te of Niger, KEPCO"
GGG
CGNPC,CADFund
Atom energoprom OJSC
Cam eco, Areva, I d e m i t s u , Tepco
P a l a d i n .
B a n n e r m a n Resources
Rio Tinto
Pele M tn Resources
S ta te of I r a n , UCL Resources
M i n m e t a l s
IFC M etropol
Kagara Ltd
Selwyn Resources, Yunnan C h ih o n g
JNMC
Boliden AB
M i n m e t a l s
Nyrstar
Androm eda
V o t o r a n t i m
S u n r i d g e Gold
Terram in A u s t , S ta te of A lg e r ia
X s t r a t a
X s t r a t a
Zincore
C h i e f t a i n M e t a ls
X s t r a t a
ENRC pic
L u n d i n M i n i n g
O verland Resources
B u m i p ic , A n t a m
J A N U A R Y 2 0 13
950
950
946
906
880
1
1,623
1,500
1,248
1,087
972
741
700
659
650
640
625
518
482
443
429
1
2 ,0 0 0
760
741
647
574
436
1
2 ,10 0
2 ,10 0
1,939
850
810
632
556
500
323
280
167
1
3,734
3 , 60 0
1,553
1,534
1,480
1,119
1,111
994
870
567
563
1
1,300
1,250
948
837
672
619
600
539
502
500
500
489
413
409
366
351
313
252
250
228
111
227
E&MJ 33
Copyright of Engineering & Mining Journal (00958948) is the property of Mining Media Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.