1
S T I B N I T E G O L D P R O J E C T I D A H O , U S A
SEPTEMBER 2015 MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX
2 F O R W A R D L O O K I N G S T A T E M E N T S Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are “forward-looking information” or “forward-looking statements” (collectively, “Forward-Looking Information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward Looking Information includes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; the timing and costs of future activities on the Corporation‘s properties, including but not limited to development and operating costs in the event that a production decision is made; success of exploration, development and environmental protection and remediation activities; permitting time lines and requirements,; requirements for additional capital,; requirements for additional water rights and the potential effect of proposed notices of environmental conditions relating to mineral claims; planned exploration and development of properties and the results thereof; planned expenditures and budgets and the execution thereof. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “potential”, “confirm” or “does not anticipate”, “believes”, “contemplates”, “recommends” or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Statements concerning mineral resource and mineral reserve estimates may also be deemed to constitute Forward-Looking Information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that may be encountered if the Stibnite Gold Project is developed. In preparing the Forward-Looking Information in this presentation, the Corporation has applied several material assumptions, including, but not limited to, that any additional financing needed will be available on reasonable terms; the exchange rates for the U.S. and Canadian currencies in 2015(?) will be consistent with the Corporation‘s expectations; that the current exploration, development, environmental and other objectives concerning the Stibnite Gold Project can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for gold will be sustained or will improve; that general business and economic conditions will not change in a materially adverse manner and that all necessary governmental approvals for the planned exploration, development and environmental protection activities on the Stibnite Gold Project will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; the continuity of the price of gold and other metals, economic and political conditions and operations. Forward-Looking Information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Corporation to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, the industry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the PFS and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds; operations and contractual obligations; changes in exploration programs based upon results of exploration; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; future prices of metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Corporation‘s planned exploration and development activities on the Stibnite Gold Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; the nature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation‘s lack of operating revenues; governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary licences and permits; risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; currency fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may increase costs of doing business and restrict operations; risks related to dependence on key personnel; and estimates used in financial statements proving to be incorrect; as well as those factors discussed in the Corporation's public disclosure record. Although the Corporation has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Corporation and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Information. Except as required by law, the Corporation does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this presentation to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Cautionary Note The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities. Investors should always consult their investment advisors prior to making any investment decisions.
3
WHY GOLD?
4 M A C R O E N V I R O N M E N T F O R G O L D
Rising World Debt Levels
Gold 2nd Best Performing Currency in 2014 Currency Wars
ETF Sales
ETF Purchases Asian Purchases
Demand - Gold Flowing West to East
1 2 3 4
5
Europe Buying Central Banks Buying
China Buying the World’s Gold Production? India Resurging
G O L D D E M A N D - R I S I N G
1 2
3 4
F.H
. 201
5
6
Spending More, Finding Less
Flat Production Despite Higher Prices
Takes Longer to Develop
World is a Riskier Place
G O L D S U P P L Y - F L A T
1 2
3 4
7
WHY MIDAS GOLD?
8
Size 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine-life
Superior grade 1.63g/t gold plus antimony and silver
4th Highest Grade Open Pit in USA Scale 388,000 oz gold/year for first 4 years
337,000 oz gold/year life-of-mine
Modest capital intensity
US$242/oz life-of-mine production
Exploration potential All deposits open to expansion Multiple exploration prospects
Strong supporters Franco-Nevada & Teck Resources
Multi-million oz deposit 8th largest gold reserve in the USA
Low cash costs US$483/oz for first 4 years, US$568/oz
life-of-mine (net of by-products)
Brownfields site Restoration of extensive prior disturbance
Positive Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) $832 million NPV at $1,350 gold, 19.3% IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate)
(1) The Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
(2) See non-IFRS measures at conclusion
Strategic by-products Antimony + silver with production
proven metallurgy
Restoration of fish passage For first time since 1938
HIGHLIGHTS: MIDAS GOLD & THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT ( 1 , 2 )
Low geopolitical risk Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction
Strong after-tax cash flow $294 million/year (Years 1-4) $254 million/year (Years 1-8)
Community Support Strong local and State support
Low all-in sustaining costs $US526/oz for first 4 years (cash cost + royalties + sustaining capital)
9
- World’s largest royalty company • US$15M Royalty transaction in April 2013
– Canada’s largest diversified mining company • C$9.8M Equity placement in July 2013
• gave it 9.9% ownership in Midas Gold at the time
• Participated in March 2014 financing
June 30, 2015 Issued & Outstanding 160,829,280 Options 13,869,000 Finders Options 410,750 Warrants 20,184,614 Fully Diluted 194,893,644
• Teck Resources • Sun Valley Gold • Franklin Templeton • M&G Investments • Vista Gold • Sprott Asset Management • Gabelli Gold • EuroPac Gold Fund
Major Shareholders
S T R O N G S U P P O R T E R S
10
DO WHAT IS RIGHT Be a good citizen:
• Hire locally
• Use local suppliers & contractors
• Participate in and support local activities
• Openness & engagement
Do more than is required:
• Voluntary environmental remediation
• High environmental & safety standards
Engage, inform, consult and consider stakeholders’ input
Deliver economic benefits
Funding for a new baseball park in
McCall, ID
Environmental Excellence Award June 2015
T H I N K I N G S U S T A I N A B L Y
11
WHY IDAHO?
12
Maplecroft identifies and monitors the key issues affecting the investment climates of 197 countries. The Atlas analyses yearly trends relating to dynamic risks, which reflect change over a short period of time, including governance, political violence, the macroeconomic environment, and included this year for the first time, resource nationalism. It also includes structural risks which reflect change over a longer timeframe, including economic diversification, resource security, infrastructure quality, the resilience of society to challenges, and the risk of complicity in human rights violations committed by regimes and business partners.
Stibnite Gold Project Midas Gold Au-Sb
Thompson Creek Mine Thompson Creek Mining
Molybdenum
Phosphate District Agrium, Monsanto, Simplot, Stonegate
Sunshine Mine Sunshine Silver Mines
Silver
Lucky Friday Mine Hecla Mining Company
Silver-Lead-Zinc
Idaho Cobalt Project Formation Metals
Copper-Cobalt
Coeur d’Alene
Cascade
BOISE
IDAHO
Low geopolitical risk in a high risk world
McCall
(1) Fraser Institute Survey
Stibnite Gold Project
©Maplecroft
A mining friendly State Well defined permitting process Strong community support Low geopolitical risk
I D A H O : T H E R I G H T P L A C E 12
13 S T I B N I T E , I D A H O : A R I C H H I S T O R Y O F M I N I N G
14
Example:
Fish Passage blocked since 1938
Midas Gold would: Restore fish passage
S T I B N I T E ’ S L E G A C Y BROWNFIELDS SITE & RESTORATION OPPORTUNITY
15
WHY THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT?
16
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
T H E S T I B N I T E G O L D P R O J E C T
An economically feasible, socially & environmentally sound project… • >$1 billion to be invested
in Idaho • ~1,000 well-paid jobs • 20-year project, including
construction, operations and reclamation
…that will finance restoration at an existing brownfields site... • Re-establish fish passage in the upper watershed • Rehabilitate stream channels and create wetlands • Remove and reprocess existing tailings • Reuse existing spent ore & waste rock for new construction • Rehabilitate historical impacts
17
Indicated Inferred
2.8 Moz 1.93 g/t Au
0.4 Moz 1.31 g/t Au
Indicated Inferred
1.1 Moz 1.60 g/t Au
0.4 Moz 1.52 g/t Au
Indicated Inferred
0.3 Moz 1.15 g/t Au
1.5 Moz 1.30 g/t Au
Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End
* See table and disclaimers at back of the presentation and Company news release dated September 10, 2014 for full details on the resource estimate.
Probable Reserves: 2.5 Moz
1.97 g/t Au
Probable Reserves: 0.7 Moz 1.53 g/t
Au
Probable Reserves: 1.3 Moz
1.22 g/t Au
Plus reserves of 102,000 oz at a grade of 1.17 g/t gold in historic tailings
Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz included in INDICATED 5.5Moz and INFERRED 1.1 Moz RESOURCE
W O R L D C L A S S M I N E R A L R E S O U R C E S A N D R E S E R V E S * (September 10, 2014 / December 15, 2014; “M” = millions)
18
* The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands, all amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine
14.0
8.3 56.0
99.9
Years 1-4
LOM
Antimony Production (millions lbs) Average Annual Production Total Production
22.0%
19.3%
IRR
pre-tax
after-tax
$1,093M
$832M
NPV5% (US$)
pre-tax
after-tax
= $242/oz produced
$483 $568
$1,350
Cash Costs vs. Gold Price (US$/oz) (2)
Years 1-4 LOM
$970 $1,125
Capital Costs (US$ millions)
Initial LOM
388
337 1,551
4,040
Years 1-4
LOM
Gold Production (000s oz) Average Annual Production Total Production
Cash Costs
AISC $506 AISC
$616
P O S I T I V E P R E L I M I N A R Y F E A S I B I L I T Y S T U D Y (PFS) * December 2014 (at $1350 gold)
19 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Newmont NevadaBarric Cortez
Barrick GoldstrikeStibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)*
Round MountainFort Knox
Stibnite Gold (Life-of-mine)*Pogo
Cripple CreekLeeville
Bingham CanyonTurquoise Ridge
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Donlin GoldHycroft
Newmont NevadaTurquoise Ridge JV
Barrick CortezLivengood
Barrick GoldstrikeCripple Creek & Victor
GoldrushCarlin Underground
ConverseBald MountainStibnite Gold*
MesquiteTwin Creeks
Spring ValleyFort Knox
Sleeper
0 10,000 20,000 30,000
Newmont NevadaBarrick Cortez
Barrick GoldstrikeHycroft
Turquoise Ridge JVPogo
Cripple Creek and VictorStibnite Gold*
MarigoldFort Knox
Bald MountainMesquite
Round MountainJerritt Canyon
Kensington
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Mineral RidgeCortez
Golden SunlightStibnite Gold*
Ruby HillNevada Operations
WharfCripple Creek and Victor
Buckskin RawhideBorealis
BriggsRound Mountain
Bald MountainMesquite
Florida CanyonMarigold
Fort KnoxHycroft
Source: USGS data for 2012 excluding mines/projects that are primarily copper or silver
4th largest years 1-4
6th largest LOM 8th largest
13th largest
4th highest grade
Largest US Gold Mines 2012 Production 000s oz Gold
Largest US Gold Mine Reserves 000s oz Gold
Largest US Gold Resources (Measured + Indicated) 000s oz Gold
Highest Grade US Open Pit Gold Mines g/t
Barrick Cortez
* Stibnite Gold PFS, December 2014
* Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study
O N E O F T H E L A R G E S T , B E S T G R A D E G O L D P R O J E C T S I N T H E U S A
20
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Barrick Newmont Goldcorp Kinross Eldorado IAMGOLD Yamana New Gold
g/t G
old
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Yellow Pine*
Hangar Flats*
West End*
* Stibnite Gold numbers are mineral reserve grades from the 2014 PFS Source: Bank of America Merrill Lynch – North America Precious Metals Weekly and public company disclosure
S U P E R I O R R E S E R V E G R A D E … …VS. MAJOR GOLD PRODUCER RESERVES
21
(1) See non-IFRS measures at conclusion. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure (2) The economic assessment in the PEA is preliminary in nature and uses inferred mineral resources. See Note (1) on page 16for full disclaimer. Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure
PEA PFS FS acquired
Size of globe = initial CAPEX
Higher production
High
er c
ost
Morelos
Brucejack
Cerro del Gallo
Yellowknife
Obotan Detour Lake Otjikoto
Aurora Gemfield
Livengood
Houndé Gold
Blackwater Rainy River
Upper Beaver
Sleeper
Stibnite Gold LOM
Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)
Golden Highway
OJVG
Freegold Mtn
Springpole
Dugbe 1
Pheonix
Moss Lake
La Mina
Rojo Grande
North Bullfrog
Batero-Quinchia
Caspiche
Kiaka Courageous Lake
Metates
Tepal
Toroparu Tasiast Volta Grande
Esaase Mt Todd
Fekola Back River
Magino
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Net
Cas
h C
osts
(1) (
US$
/oz
of g
old)
Annual Production - LoM Avg (000's oz of gold)
P O T E N T I A L F O R L A R G E S C A L E , L O W C O S T G O L D - A N T I M O N Y M I N E
22
Obotan
Morelos
Aurora
Lindero
Houndé Gold
Karma
Rainy River Upper Beaver
Stibnite Gold Life-of-Mine
Cerro Maricunga
OJVG
Freegold Mtn
Pheonix
Moss Lake
La Mina
North Bullfrog
Batero-Quinchia Bombore
Tepal
Toroparu
Esaase
Mt Todd
Back River Magino
-$100
$100
$300
$500
$700
$900
$1,100
$1,300
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Post
-Tax
NPV
@ U
S$1,
400/
oz G
old
(U
S$ M
illio
ns)
Life of Mine Gold Production (Moz)
Size of globe proportionate to cash costs net of by-product credits (US$/oz)
PEA PFS FS Recently acquired
Sources: Haywood Securities & Company Disclosure Note: The economic assessment in the PEA is preliminary in nature and uses inferred mineral resources. See Note (1) on page 11 for full disclaimer.
Higher Gold Production
High
er N
PV
S U B S T A N T I A L N P V A N D L I F E - O F - M I N E G O L D P R O D U C T I O N ( 2 )
23
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650
NPV
(US$
mill
ions
)
Gold Price ($/oz)
5% After-Tax
0% After-Tax
0% Pre Tax
Enterprise Value ~US $35m
S U B S T A N T I A L N P V & L E V E R A G E T O G O L D P R I C E
24
Source: Haywood Securities
Price to Project Net Asset Value M U L T I P L E S T O N E T A S S E T V A L U E ADVANCED GOLD DEVELOPERS - NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
0.00x
0.20x
0.40x
0.60x
0.80x
1.00x
1.20x
Romarco(Oceana)
Torex GuyanaGoldfields
TMAC GoldenQueen
Pretium Integra Kaminak Sabina Almaden Midas
Econ
omic
Stu
dy P
roje
ct N
AV5%
- U
S$1,
250
Au (U
S$M
)
Pric
e to
NAV
(US$
1,25
0 Au
)
Price to Proj NAV
Project NAV5% (US$1,250 Au)*
Project Development Timeframe
Pre-Feasibility Permitting Construction
Price to Project NAV
25
Source: Haywood Securities
E N T E R P R I S E V A L U E P E R O U N C E O F R E S E R V E ADVANCED GOLD DEVELOPERS - NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
Torex Romarco(Oceana)
GuyanaGoldfields
TMAC GoldenQueen
Pretium Kaminak* Premier* Integra* Almaden* Sabina Midas
EV P
er O
z Res
erve
(C$/
oz)
Project Development Timeframe
Pre-Feasibility Permitting Construction
*Company Reported Economic Study Project After-Tax NAV5%
26
Flame Retardants
60%
Batteries & alloys
20%
Other uses 20%
Antimony Uses (USGS) Supply Risk - China dominates world antimony & tungsten supply
• No domestic U.S. antimony or tungsten mine production • U.S. is reliant on China for majority of its antimony & tungsten • Chinese supply is falling • Export restrictions from China since 2009
Potential for new U.S. legislation aimed at developing U.S. production of critical minerals
World Antimony Production 2014 (USGS)
Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)
$0.00$1.00$2.00$3.00$4.00$5.00$6.00$7.00$8.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Antim
ony
(US$
/lb)
USA 1% Bolivia
3% Burma
6%
China 78%
Russia 4%
S. Africa 2%
Tajikistan 3%
Other Countries
3%
S T R A T E G I C B Y - P R O D U C T S P O T E N T I A L B Y - P R O D U C T C R E D I T S F R O M A N T I M O N Y & P O S S I B L Y T U N G S T E N
27
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT PFS OPPORTUNITIES
28
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
P R I N C I P A L O P P O R T U N I T I E S LARGEST POTENTIAL IMPACT LIKELY TO COME FROM MORE PAYABLE METAL
MINING PROCESSING CAPITAL INCREASE RESERVES
AT GOOD GRADES
• Optimizing scheduling, sequencing and stockpiling
• In pit resource to reserve conversion
• Optimize pit slopes to reduce stripping
• Optimize grind size/recovery
• Secondary processing of antimony concentrates
• Third party funding of offsite infrastructure
• Reduced construction schedule
• In pits • Beside pits • In new, higher grade,
underground deposits
29 Existing Deposits:
• Resource to reserve conversion • Resource/reserve expansion immediately adjacent to pits • In pit unclassified materials • Grade &/or oz increases in historic data areas
Priority Prospects: • Small tonnage, high grade
e.g. Garnet, Scout, Upper Midnight • Bulk tonnage
e.g. Cinnamid-Ridgetop, Saddle-Fern, Rabbit • Undefined airborne targets
e.g. Mule, Salt & Pepper, Blow-out
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
< 1M oz 1-2M oz 2-5M oz 5-10M oz 10-30M oz >30M oz#
of D
epos
its
Contained oz of Gold
Stibnite Gold Project
(1) Source: Mineral Economics Group, RBC Capital Markets
Rarity of Global Gold Deposits >5m oz(1)
R E S O U R C E & R E S E R V E P O T E N T I A L
30
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
INSIDE THE PFS RESERVE PITS AROUND THE PFS RESERVE PITS THROUGH RESOURCE CONVERSION
• Converting some or all of 346k oz Au @ 1.1 g/t Au in inferred mineral resources* to mineral reserves, also reducing strip ratio
• 50-100k oz Au in partially drilled waste dumps currently treated as waste rock**
• 50-100k oz Au + 30-50M lbs Sb through more detailed drilling of higher grade core of Yellow Pine, where historic data restricted or excluded**
• 889k oz Au @ 1.7g/t Au in indicated mineral resources between reserve pit and resource pit
• 714k oz Au @ 1.5 g/t Au in inferred mineral resources* between reserve pit and resource pit
I N - & N E X T - T O - P I T R E S E R V E A D D T I O N P O T E N T I A L
* See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding Inferred Mineral Resources ** See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding geologic exploration potential
31
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
H I G H G R A D E E X P L O R A T I O N T A R G E T S EXPLORATION POTENTIAL
AROUND THE PFS PITS HIGH GRADE UNDERGROUND
PROSPECTS
NE Yellow Pine, including intercepts of:
• 162ft @ 5.4g/t Au • 45ft @ 5.9g/t Au
Hangar Flats below pit, including intercepts of: • 125ft @ 3.1g/t Au, 1.45% Sb • 249ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.5% Sb
Hangar Flats in the old DMEA workings area, which had intercepts of:
• 84ft @ 3.6g/t Au • 157ft @ 5.1g/t Au, 0.30% Sb • 294ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.76% Sb • 125ft @ 6.6g/t Au, 0.51% Sb
West End, both along strike and deeper, including intercepts of:
• Deeper: 127ft @ 2.9g/t Au & 230ft @ 2.3g/t Au
• Along strike: 155ft @ 3.5g/t Au & 95ft @ 3.2g/t Au
Garnet conceptual underground target with 95 holes completed:
• 1-2m ton range containing 250 – 500k oz Au at grades of 5 – 8g/t Au
Upper Midnight is a high grade prospect, including intercepts of:
• 75ft @ 14.8g/t Au • 100ft @ 6.7g/t Au • 35ft @ 11.3g/t Au • 25ft @ 15.6g/t Au
32
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
33
Remediate legacy disturbance • Tailings, waste dumps, mill & smelter site
Design for closure • Wetlands, restore drainage channels
Protect and enhance water quality, fisheries, wetlands • Restore fish passage, reduce sedimentation
Engage, inform, consult & consider stakeholders’ input • Address local priorities and feed back into project design
Demonstrate significant net local benefits • Employment, tax benefits and environment
Evaluate & incorporate options to reduce environmental footprint
• Innovative design concepts
Do What is Right: Current
After
A S U S T A I N A B L E P R O J E C T P L A N N E D F O R C L O S U R E & R E C L A M A T I O N
34
Objectives: • Reduce incremental impact • Reuse previously impacted areas • Reclaim historically impacted areas • Create a self-sustaining natural
environment with healthy fish habitat Concepts: • Upgrade existing Burntlog Road • Use existing power line corridor • Reprocess historic tailings • Reuse impacted area for waste rock • Reuse existing haul roads • Re-mine previously mined areas • West End waste rock used to backfill
Yellow Pine pit • Restore fishery to upper watershed • Enhancement of wetlands and stream
habitat, reforestation
C L O S U R E C O N C E P T S F O R A B R O W N F I E L D S S I T E
35
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Num
ber o
f Dire
ct E
mpl
oyee
s
Year of Operation
Direct Employment Estimates - Operations
Mine Operations Mine GeneralMine Maintenance ProcessGeneral & Admin.
Key points:
• $28,000/year avg. salary in Idaho • $72,500/year avg. mining salary in Idaho • 3 year construction period:
• ~700 jobs created in Idaho - ~400 direct jobs
- >300 indirect jobs
• 12 year operating life: • ~1,000 jobs created in Idaho
- ~500 direct jobs
- ~500 indirect jobs
• Aggregate annual payroll: • $48 million/year - Construction
• $56 million/year - Operations The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
E M P L O Y M E N T SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT & INDIRECT IMPACT
36
Key points:
• Significant contribution to the local, state and federal economies:
• 15 year construction and operating life
• Taxes paid by Midas Gold over project life: • $329 million federal tax
• $86 million state & local tax
• Indirect & induced taxes paid by others • >$300 million federal, state & local
• 15-year total taxes: • $506 million federal tax
• $218 million state & local tax
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Loca
l, St
ate
and
Fede
ral T
axes
($ m
illio
n)
Year Other federal, state and local taxes resulting from Midas Gold'sactivitiesMidas Gold federal taxes
T A X P A Y M E N T S ( B A S E C A S E ) SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS
37
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT MOVING FORWARD
38 N E X T S T E P S
USE PFS TO ENGAGE WITH REGULATORS, COMMUNITIES, OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
CONSIDER PLAN OF OPERATIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR MINING & PROCESSING OPERATION
• Consider and optimize options • Mitigate impacts • Demonstrate:
• Concurrent environmental & fisheries enhancement as part of overall mine plan
• A robust closure and final reclamation plan • Significant local benefits through
employment & business opportunities
• Participation of USFS, US EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries at federal level, Idaho DEQ, Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Idaho Dept. of Lands, Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game, et al.
• Ongoing regulatory cooperation through Idaho’s Joint Review Process
• Continued regulator, community and stakeholder engagement
39
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
And Idaho Joint Review Process
Federal Permits and Authorizations
• Initial Plan of Operations • NPDES – water discharges • Corps 404 – wetlands and streams • SWPPP – stormwater • SPCCC – spill prevention • Section 7 ESA – endangered
species consultation • NOAA Fisheries – consultation • Native Consultation • Cultural and Historical issues • Air Quality • Waste Rock Management • Powerline Right-of-Way
State Permits
• Water Rights • Cyanidation • Dam Safety (Tailings Dam) • Reclamation Plan • Stream Channel Alteration • TMDL • Ground Water • Domestic Water Supply • Waste Water Treatment • Air Quality • 401 Water Quality Certification
Local Permits
• Comprehensive Plan • Zoning • Local Health District • Building Permits • Road Use Authorization • Conditional Use Permit
Final Plan of Operations & Reclamation Plan
& Reclamation Bond
T H E E I S & P E R M I T T I N G P R O C E S S ( M A J O R P E R M I T S )
40
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
41
Don Bailey Chair & Director
Peter Nixon Chair & Director Ex-Goepel, director of Dundee Precious Metals, ex-Miramar
Wayne Hubert Director
Stephen Quin Director / CEO
John Wakeford Director
Donald Young Director
Ex-CEO of Andean, ex-VP Meridian Gold
Ex-Capstone, Sherwood, Miramar
& Northern Orion
Ex-Sabina, Miramar, Hemlo &
Battle Mountain
Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome, director of Dundee Precious
Metals
Keith Allred Director
Laurel Sayer Director
Executive Director of Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of natural resource
issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation
Partner at Cicero Group, 2010
Democratic candidate for Governor of Idaho
Ken Brunk Director
Ronn Julian Director
Scotty Davenport Director
Frank Eld Director
Served four terms on McCall City Council, two
as mayor, resident of McCall, ID
Former Valley County Commissioner (two terms), resident of
Rosebury, ID
Founding member of Valley County Economic
Development Council, business owner in Valley
County, resident of McCall, ID
Three decades with the US Forest Service,
resident of Cascade, ID
Ex-CEO Midway Gold, ex-Romarco, ex-
Newmont, experienced mine builder & operator
Bob Barnes President & Director COO Midas Gold, Ex-
VP Ops Capstone, ex-Pan American,
Goldcorp
Midas Gold Corp. Board
Midas Gold Inc. Board (Idaho operating subsidiary)
B O A R D S O F D I R E C T O R S : PROVEN TRACK RECORD, LOCAL INTERESTS
42
Stephen Quin President & CEO
Bob Barnes COO
Darren Morgans CFO
Anne Labelle VP Legal &
Sustainability
John Meyer VP
Development
Richard Moses Field Operations
Manager
Chris Dail Exploration
Manager
Rocky Chase Permitting Manager
Rick Richins Regulatory Consultant
Liz Caridi IR Manager
Ex-COO Capstone, ex-CEO Sherwood Copper, Miramar
Mining
Ex-VP Ops Capstone, ex-Pan American,
Goldcorp
Ex-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and
PWC
Ex-Capstone, Sherwood, Miramar
Ex-Livengood, Pebble, Donlin
Creek, Bakyrchik
Ex-Cominco, Asarco,
Kennecott, Piedmont,
USFS
Ex-Barrick, Hecla, Stibnite district
experience
Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon
Minerals
Ex-Coeur, several EIS permitting US
mines
Ex-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude
E X P E R I E N C E D M A N A G E M E N T : WE’VE DONE IT BEFORE!
43
Extensive PFS test program • 7 master composites • 114 variability composites
Net overall Gold Recoveries
Yellow Pine 90% West End 86% Hangar Flats 87% Historic Tailings 75%
Antimony Recoveries Yellow Pine 87% Hangar Flats 82%
Jaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill
Antimony Flotation
Gold Flotation
Pressure Oxidation
Gold Leach & Recovery
Antimony Concentrate
Gold Doré
Oxi
des
(~14
%)
High Sb Sulphides (~14%)
Tailings Lo
w S
b Su
lphi
des
(~72
%)
Simplified Flow Sheet
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
Tailings
P R O C E S S I N G : ROBUST GOLD & ANTIMONY RECOVERY
44
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Expe
cted
Mar
gin
Ove
rall
Cost
s ($/
oz)
AISC Dev. Capex/oz Margin %
Source: Macquarie Capital Markets
D E V E L O P E R E X P E C T E D M A R G I N C U R V E BASED ON ~US$1200/oz
45
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Paya
ble
Met
al V
alue
($ m
illio
ns)
Year of Operation
Payable Gold
Payable Antimony
Payable Silver
Key points: • ~$530 million/year payable metal
during first 8 years • Contribution by metal:
• 94% from gold • 5% from antimony • <1% from silver
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
P A Y A B L E V A L U E ( $ ) B Y M E T A L ( B A S E C A S E )
46
-$1,600
-$1,200
-$800
-$400
$0
$400
$800
$1,200
$1,600
-$600
-$450
-$300
-$150
$0
$150
$300
$450
$600
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cum
ulat
ive
Afte
r Tax
Cas
h Fl
ow ($
mill
ions
)
Afte
r Tax
Cas
h Fl
ow ($
mill
ions
)
Year of Operation
Undiscounted Cash Flow
Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow
Key Points: • $1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)
• $294 million/year Years 1-4 • $254 million/year Years 1-8
• Payback in 3.4 years (after tax)
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
A F T E R T A X C A S H F L O W ( B A S E C A S E )
47
Changes: • Reductions in mining related costs
• Smaller Hangar Flats pit reduces waste rock and additional equipment requirements
• Leasing major mining equipment
• Contingency reduced • Refined project estimates
• Increases in process plant CAPEX • Related to design changes
• Increased onsite & offsite infrastructure • Power line and access road
• Increased closure costs • Improved quantification of requirements
$1,182
$31 $97 $19 $1,125 -$176 -$28
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
LOM PEACAPEX
Mining Processingand Utilities
Infrastructure Owner CostsMitigation
and Closure
Contigency LOM PFSCAPEX
Life
-of-M
ine
CAPE
X ($
mill
ions
)
Life-of-Mine CAPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
Contingency
P F S v s P E A – L I F E - O F - M I N E C A P I T A L C O S T S LOWER MINING CAPEX MORE THAN OFFSETS OTHER CHANGES
48
$19.06 $1.30 $1.91
$1.82 $0.94 $24.40
- $0.63
$0
$3
$6
$9
$12
$15
$18
$21
$24
$27
PEA TotalCash Costs
By-ProductRevenue
Mining &Stockpiling
Processing General &Administration
Royalty PFS TotalCash Costs
Life
-of-M
ine
OPE
X ($
/t)
Changes: • Operating costs have increased 28%
• Reduction in by-product credits • Leasing costs for mining equipment • More detailed mine planning • Finer grinding • Addition of 1.7% royalty • Reduced G&A
• Modest impact on NPV5%
Life-of-Mine OPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
34% of increase
36% of increase
P F S v s P E A – L I F E - O F - M I N E O P E R A T I N G C O S T S HIGHER UNIT MINING COSTS AND FINER GRINDING ARE MAIN SOURCES OF INCREASED COSTS
49
$1,482
$832
-$74 -$387
-$120
-$63 -$6
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
PEANPV
Change inOpex
Change inPayable Metal
Change inMetal Prices
Addition ofRoyalty
Change inCapex
PFSNPV
Proj
ect N
PV a
t 5%
Dis
coun
t Rat
e ($
mill
ions
)
Life-of-Mine After-tax NPV5% - Comparing PEA to PFS Changes: • Decrease in payable metal:
• Inferred resources excluded in PFS • Changes in mineral resource estimation
process
• Decrease in metal prices • Increases to OPEX
• Finer grinding • Increased electricity costs & consumption,
grinding media consumption
• Unit mining costs • Lower cost Hangar Flats material eliminated
• More detailed haulage profiles
• Addition of 1.7% royalty The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
PEA NPV5%
PFS NPV5%
60% of reduction
11% of reduction
P F S v s P E A – N E T P R E S E N T V A L U E REDUCED PAYABLE METALS IS SOURCE OF LARGEST REDUCTION IN NPV
50
REGULATORY INFORMATION
51
The technical information in this presentation (the “Technical Information”) has been approved by Stephen P. Quin, P. Geo., President & CEO of Midas Gold Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, “Midas Gold”) and a Qualified Person. Midas Gold’s exploration activities at Stibnite Gold were carried out under the supervision of Christopher Dail, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Exploration Manager and Richard Moses, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Site Operations Manager. For readers to fully understand the information in this presentation, they should read the Pre-Feasibility Study Report (to be available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldcorp.com) in its entirety (the “Technical Report”), including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to the information set out in this presentation that qualifies the Technical Information. The Technical Report is intended to be read as a whole, and sections or summaries should not be read or relied upon out of context. The technical information in the Technical Report is subject to the assumptions and qualifications contained therein. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these Inferred mineral resources will be converted to the Measured and Indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied. Section 2.3 of NI 43-101 states that: Despite paragraph (1) (a), an issuer may disclose in writing the potential quantity and grade, expressed as ranges, of a target for further exploration if the disclosure
(a) states with equal prominence that the potential quantity and grade is conceptual in nature, that there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource; and (b) states the basis on which the disclosed potential quantity and grade has been determined.
The mineral resources and mineral reserves at the Stibnite Gold Project are contained within areas that have seen historic disturbance resulting from prior mining activities. In order for Midas Gold to advance its interests at Stibnite, the Project will be subject to a number of federal, State and local laws and regulations and will require permits to conduct its activities. However, Midas Gold is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal or other reasons that would prevent it from advancing the project. The PFS was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. (“M3”) which was engaged by Midas Gold Corp.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Midas Gold, Inc. (“MGI”), to evaluate potential options for the possible redevelopment of the Stibnite Gold Project based on information available up to the date of the PFS. Givens Pursley LLP (land tenure), Kirkham Geosystems Ltd. (mineral resources), Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy), Pieterse Consulting, Inc. (autoclave), Independent Mining Consultants Inc. (mine plan and mineral reserves), Allen R. Anderson Metallurgical Engineer Inc. (recovery methods), HDR Engineering Inc. (access road), SPF Water Engineering, LLC (water rights) and Tierra Group International Ltd. (tailings, water management infrastructure and closure) also contributed to the PFS. Additional details of responsibilities are provided at the end of this news release and in the technical report to be filed on SEDAR by the end of 2014. The PFS supersedes and replaces the technical report entitled ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho’ prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. and dated September 21, 2012 (PEA) and that PEA should no longer be relied upon.
"Cash Costs", “All-in Sustaining Costs” and “Total costs” are not Performance Measures reported in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). These performance measures are included because these statistics are key performance measures that management uses to monitor performance. Management uses these statistics to assess how the Project ranks against its peer projects and to assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the contemplated mining operations. These performance measures do not have a meaning within IFRS and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measures should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.
NON-IFRS REPORTING MEASURES
C O M P L I A N C E W I T H N I 4 3 - 1 0 1
52
FOR MORE INFORMATION: T E L : 7 7 8 . 7 2 4 . 4 7 0 0 F A X : 6 0 4 . 5 5 8 . 4 7 0 0 E - M A I L : I N F O @ M I D A S G O L D C O R P . C O M S U I T E 1 2 5 0 – 9 9 9 W E S T H A S T I N G S S T R E E T V A N C O U V E R , B C C A N A D A V 6 C 2 W 2 W W W . M I D A S G O L D C O R P . C O M
MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX