Green Bay Ming Mine Copper-Gold Project PEA: C$2.13B NPV, 41% IRR
FireFly Metals Ltd.'s Green Bay Ming Mine Copper-Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada has a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlining an after-tax NPV of C$2.13B, an after-tax IRR of 41%, and initial capital of C$560M. The mine plan runs 33 years at about 55 kt/a payable CuEq (peak years) per year.
FireFly Metals Ltd.'s Green Bay Ming Mine Copper-Gold Project 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 C$2.13B 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 C$2.13B using a 7% discount rate. After-tax IRR is 41%. Initial capital expenditure is estimated at C$560M, with life-of-mine sustaining capital of C$884M. The study models a payback period of 1.9 years. Economics are based on Copper US$5.0/lb; Gold US$3,500/oz; Silver US$44/oz; Exchange rate 1.35 USD/CAD (long-term consensus).
Production and mine plan. The project envisions an underground (transverse and longitudinal long hole open stoping with paste backfill; bulk mining scenario for lfz) operation. Life of mine is 33 years. Average annual production is approximately 55 kt/a payable CuEq (peak years). Average head grade is 2.20% Cu, 0.81 g/t Au, 6.08 g/t Ag (design). Metallurgical recovery averages 98%.
Resources and ownership. The company holds a 100% interest in the project. Royalties and streams: 1.0% NSR royalty on mining lease 188L.
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 | 57.3 Mt | 2.44% CuEq | — |
| Inferred | 17.3 Mt | 2.77% CuEq | Cu 344 kt, Au 404 koz, Ag 3.5 Moz |
Our Analysis
- IRR after-tax
- 41%
higher than 97% of 29 projects we track
- NPV after-tax
- C$2.13B
higher than 82% of 38 projects we track
- Initial capex
- C$560M
26% of NPV
costlier than 36% of 42 projects we track
- Payback
- 1.9yrs
slower than 0% of 28 projects we track
- Mine life
- 33yrs
- Discount rate
- 7%
- Study price assumption
- Copper US$5.0/lb; Gold US$3,500/oz; Silver US$44/oz; Exchange rate 1.35 USD/CAD (long-term consensus)
- Spot copper today
- $6.81/lb
A 41% after-tax IRR would put this copper project in the top decile of the 29 we track, and it comes attached to a C$560M initial build, 26% of the C$2.13B after-tax NPV. That pairing, strong returns on a modest cheque, is what makes the asset screen well. The payback does the rest of the work: 1.9 years, faster than all 28 copper projects we compare against. Capital that returns inside two years is capital that stops being a financing problem and starts being a compounding one.
The catch is the study, not the numbers. This is a PEA, scoping-level, which means inferred material can carry the mine plan and the capital estimate comes with a plus or minus 50% band. A 33-year life built on that foundation is a statement of intent, not a reserve. The economics also lean on US$5.0/lb copper against a live spot of $6.81/lb, so the headline is not stretched by the price deck; if anything the study is the conservative case. What a PEA cannot tell you is whether the grade and continuity hold once drilling tightens the resource.
Funding is the live question. The build is roughly 0.4x the company's US$1.14B market cap, a meaningful fraction of equity value, and the C$2.13B NPV sits at about 1.4x that same cap. That gap can mean the market has yet to credit the asset, or that it is discounting PEA-stage risk, the capital raise, and the dilution that comes with it. A diversified five-project portfolio softens the single-asset read but does not remove the cheque. The decisive question is whether a feasibility study confirms the resource and the capital estimate without eroding the payback.
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.