Green Bay Copper-Gold Project - Ming Deposit (1.8Mtpa Case) PEA: A$2.20B NPV, 41% IRR
FireFly Metals Ltd.'s Green Bay Copper-Gold Project - Ming Deposit (1.8Mtpa Case) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada has a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlining an after-tax NPV of A$2.20B, an after-tax IRR of 41%, and initial capital of A$514M. The mine plan runs 32 years at about 50 ktpa CuEq per year.
FireFly Metals Ltd.'s Green Bay Copper-Gold Project - Ming Deposit (1.8Mtpa Case) has reported Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) results for the copper project in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The study headlines an after-tax net present value of A$2.20B at a 7% discount rate. It reflects FireFly Metals Ltd.'s (FFM.TO) latest disclosed economics for the asset.
Economics. The after-tax NPV is A$2.20B using a 7% discount rate. After-tax IRR is 41%. Initial capital expenditure is estimated at A$514M. The study models a payback period of 1.9 years. Economics are based on Commodity prices ~25% less than spot (PEA base case). Metal equivalents calculated at Cu US$10,626/t, Au US$3,587/oz, Ag US$50.22/oz..
Production and mine plan. The project envisions an underground operation. Life of mine is 32 years. Average annual production is approximately 50 ktpa CuEq. Average head grade is 3.0% CuEq (14 years); LOM mill feed 50Mt @ 2.4% CuEq.
Resources and ownership. The company holds a 100% interest in the project. Royalties and streams: None (Company states no debt, streams or offtake).
These figures are extracted from FireFly Metals Ltd.'s technical disclosures and reflect the most recent PEA on file. Compare this project against other developers and producers in our project economics database, and always verify the numbers against the original technical report before making any investment decision.
Reserves & Resources
| Category | Tonnage | Grade | Contained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured & Indicated | 60.2 Mt | 2.4% CuEq | — |
| Inferred | 23.5 Mt | 2.5% CuEq | — |
| High-grade core – Measured & Indicated | 18.1 Mt | 4.3% CuEq | — |
| High-grade core – Inferred | 7.0 Mt | 4.4% CuEq | — |
Our Analysis
- IRR after-tax
- 41%
higher than 97% of 36 projects we track
- NPV after-tax
- A$2.20B
higher than 79% of 43 projects we track
- Initial capex
- A$514M
23% of NPV
costlier than 32% of 47 projects we track
- Payback
- 1.9yrs
slower than 3% of 34 projects we track
- Mine life
- 32yrs
- Discount rate
- 7%
- Study price assumption
- Commodity prices ~25% less than spot (PEA base case). Metal equivalents calculated at Cu US$10,626/t, Au US$3,587/oz, Ag US$50.22/oz.
- Spot copper today
- $6.61/lb
A 41% after-tax IRR on a A$514M build is the kind of ratio that usually invites suspicion, and here the suspicion is worth airing. Against the 36 copper projects we track, the return sits in the top decile, payback lands at 1.9 years (faster than 97% of the 34 peers with that metric), and the after-tax NPV of A$2.20B ranks above 79% of 43 peers. That combination of a small cheque and a fast payback is rare, and it is the reason this asset screens as well as it does.
The catch is not the economics but the confidence behind them. This is a PEA, scoping-level work that may lean on inferred resources and whose capital estimate carries a plus or minus 50% band. A 32-year mine life is the strongest counterweight to that: it suggests the return is not hostage to a short, high-grade window, and it gives the NPV room to survive a re-estimate. The jurisdiction helps too, with Newfoundland and Labrador a mining-friendly Canadian setting rather than a permitting gamble. The study's price deck sits roughly 25% below spot, so the base case is not leaning on a stretched copper assumption; at today's $6.61/lb there is upside rather than optimism embedded.
Funding is where the numbers tighten. The A$514M build is only 23% of NPV and lighter than 68% of peers, but it is still about 0.4x the company's entire US$854M market cap. That is financeable for a diversified five-project group, not a single-asset junior, but it is not trivial, and the NPV-to-market-cap gap of roughly 1.7x cuts both ways: either the market has not caught up, or it is discounting PEA-stage risk and the dilution a build implies. The question that decides this: does a feasibility study hold the capital estimate and the mine life close enough to preserve the return?
Our take, benchmarked against the project economics in the Mining Stocks database. Figures are estimates drawn from company technical reports — not investment advice; always verify against the source filing.
Get the next one first
Be the first to know about new mining results, and how they compare to other projects.