The T3 mine feasibility study for Aim-listed strategic natural resource investor Metal Tiger’s joint venture project with ASX-listed MOD Resources in the Kalahari copperbelt, in Botswana, is “progressing well within budget”, and is due for completion in March 2019, Metal Tiger said on Tuesday.

Additionally, metallurgical test work results further identified capital and operational cost savings versus those contained in the prefeasibility study.

The Botswana Power Corporation has also started building regional electricity grid infrastructure, including a power line that is due to pass within 12 km of the planned T3 mine site.

Metal Tiger also announced on Tuesday that the first stage of a 40-person accommodation village, located on the A3 Highway near Ghanzi, has been completed and is subject to final sign-off.

A project brief has been submitted to the Botswana Department of Environment Affairs (DEA) to increase the size of the accommodation village from the current size up to 400 personnel and allow for an additional 300 personnel during construction.

Meanwhile, the scope and terms of reference for the T3 environmental and social impact (Esia) assessment have been approved by the Botswana DEA, with the report due in the fourth quarter of this year.

The completion of the feasibility study and approval of the Esia are required ahead of applying for the T3 mining licence, which is anticipated in the first half of 2019.

“We are delighted to report that the T3 mine feasibility study remains on track to complete in March 2019, with the engineering and design works both on schedule and within budget,” Metal Tiger CEO Michael McNeilly said.

He added that T3 continues to surprise to the upside and, at each juncture, capitalises on the company’s belief that this is a highly economic and significant copper project.

“The findings of the feasibility level metallurgical test work are particularly encouraging with the coarser grind metal recoveries supporting a reduction in anticipated capital, operational and power costs versus the prefeasibility study stage model.”