platform for growth tsx:tmm | nyse mkt:tgd...tsx: tmm nyse mkt: tgd cautionary statement on forward...

TSX: TMM NYSE MKT: TGD 0

PLATFORMFOR GROWTHFebruary 2017

www.timminsgold.comTSX:TMM | NYSE MKT:TGD

TSX: TMM NYSE MKT: TGD

At a Glance

1

Shares Outstanding 355.6M

Warrants (C$0.35 strike)(C$0.70 strike)

10.0M18.2M

Fully Diluted Shares 383.8M

Recent Share Price US$0.40

Market Capitalization US$146M

Capital Structure

Cash at December 31, 2016 US$34M

Debt none

Balance Sheet

Major Shareholders• Goldcorp

• Sentry Investments

• Lundin Group

• Sun Valley Gold

• Aga Nola AG

San Francisco MineSonora, MexicoStatus: Operating2016: 100,300 oz gold produced at <US$900/oz AISC (est)2017E: 70,000 to 75,000oz at <1,000/oz AISC

Ana Paula ProjectGuerrero, MexicoStatus: FeasibilityPEA Feb 2016 @$1,200/oz Gold

NPV US$248m, IRR 43%

SAN FRANCISCO

ANA PAULA

EJUTLA

Ejutla ProjectOaxaca, MexicoStatus: ExplorationAdjacent to Fortuna’a

San Jose Project


• Produced 103k oz gold in 2016• Generated ~$24M mine-level free cash flow for 9 mos. at avg. gold price of ~$1,224/oz

• 2017 Guidance 70k to 75koz at AISC <US$1,000/oz• 5 Year operating plan in place for 2018-2022 with substantial production upside

Our Vision

2

Platform to build a mid-tier gold producer• Unlocking and creating value from existing assets

SAN FRANCISCOMINE

• High grade open pit growth project on the Guerrero Gold Belt – PEA completed Feb 2016

• 130,000 oz/yr for first 5 years at <$500/oz AISC

• Capital efficient project – 6,000 tpd mill purchased, demobilized and in storage

• Feasibility study underway, permitting well advanced

ANA PAULAPROJECT

• San Francisco near mine - improve existing 5 year plan

• Sonora land holdings - leverage from San Francisco infrastructure

• Ana Paula - significant exploration potential at depth and on prospective land package on Guerrero Gold Belt

• Ejutla – greenfield exploration property in highly prospective Oaxaca state

EXPLORATION


Board and ManagementBryan Coates, Ind.

Chairman• President Osisko

Royalties• Former CFO Osisko

Mining, IAMGOLD, Cambior

Greg McCunn, CEO

• Former CFO Asanko, Farallon

• Operations Teck, Placer Dome

Stephen Lang, Independent

• Chairman Centerra• Former CEO, COO

Centerra• Operations Barrick,

Kinross

Tony Hawkshaw, Independent

• Founding shareholder, former CFO Rio Alto

• Former CFO Pan American Silver

3

Arturo Bonillas, President

• Founding shareholder• +30 years operations

and exploration

Miguel Bonilla, VP Finance & Admin

• Permitting• Union relations

J. Hector Figueroa, VP Operations

• Former COO Southern Peru Copper

Jorge Vidana, GM San Francisco

• 25 years Grupo Frisco

Paula Rogers, Independent

• Former CFO Castle Peak

• Finance Goldcorp, Silver Wheaton

George Brack, Independent

• Chairman Capstone• Director, Silver

Wheaton• Geologist/investment

banking

Mark Backens, Director

• Past interim CEO• Geologist/investment

banking• Placer Dome/Meridian

Jose Vizquerra, Independent

• EVP Osisko Mining• Former CEO Oban• P.Geo – Buenaventura,

Goldcorp


San Francisco Mine

• Solid production year in 2016:– 100,300oz produced– AISC ~$800/oz

• Guidance for 2017:– 70,000 – 75,000 ounces gold – Cash costs $900-950/oz– AISC <$1,000/oz

• 2017 low production year as pit behind on stripping

• Investigating operational improvements to 2017

• 2018 to 2022 improve resource to reserve conversion

4

Key Operating Statistics Units 2016

Ore Processed Mt 7.65

Ore Grade g/t Au 0.58

Waste Mined Mt 14.9

Strip Ratio W:O 2.0:1


San Francisco Mine | Resources

5

San Francisco PitM&I 42.0 Mt @0.60 g/t= 814 koz Au

P&P 24.9 Mt @0.57 g/t =457 koz Au La Chichara PitM&I 13.5 Mt @0.5 g/t= 215 koz Au

P&P 7.2 Mt @0.51 g/t =117 koz Au

Las Barajitas PitNo published resource

Currently being mined

Note:• M&I Resource @ $1350/oz Au

inclusive of P&P Reserves

• P&P Reserves @ $1250/oz Au

• All as of July 1, 2016 NI 43101 technical report filed on SEDAR

Phase 7

Phase 5 – Current Stripping

Phase 6


Limon Guajes

Leagold – Los Filos

Torex

MorelosSan LuisRey David

TXG

TMM

Ana Paula

Project Area

Ana Paula Project |Guerrero Gold Belt


Ana Paula | Project Overview

• Updated PEA completed in February 2016 to incorporate used processing facility (now decommissioned and in storage)

• Initiated $9.2m project advancement program in Aug 2016

• Current work program to complete PFS in Q2 2017

• Definitive feasibility study, permitting and financing to follow

• Target investment decision in Q2 2018

7

Infill Drilling 10,000m Feb 2017

Flowsheet Development Feb 2017

Resource Modelling / Mine Planning

March/April 2017

Metallurgical Testing March 2017

Pre-Feasibility Study June 2017

Current Work Program


Ana Paula | PEA Highlights

8

Robust Economics Lowest Quartile Operating Costs

Capital Cost $120 m

Strip Ratio 2.6:1 waste:ore

Mining Rate 23,385 tpd

Plant Throughput 6,000 tpd

Head Grade 2.24 g/t gold6.89 g/t silver

Recovery 75% gold50% silver

Average Annual Production (First 5 years)

130,800 oz gold298,600 oz silver

Life of Mine 8.2 years

After Tax @$1,200/oz Gold NPV 5% = $248 mIRR = 46%

Source: Ana Paula PEA dated February 2, 2016, US$

Mining ($/t processed) $6.00

Processing ($/t processed) $15.52

G&A ($/t processed) $2.34

Total Operating Cost ($/t processed) $23.98

Total Cash Cost (net of by-product) $442/oz

Total AISC (net of by-product) $479/oz

2016 Total Cash Cost Curve ($/oz)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

25% 50% 75% 100%

First Quartile Cash Costs

(Source: WoodMac 2016 total cash costs (including royalties)


Ana Paula | Infill Drilling

9For complete drill results and sections see the Company’s website

• Infill drilling tightening up drill spacing from PEA to be used in update Mineral Resource Estimate

• Over 8,000m with assay results confirming high grade mineralization

A A

Hole Interval Width (m) Gold (g/t) Silver (g/t)

AP-16-253 151.07 8.98 6.52

AP-16-252 48.4 12.16 10.72

AP-16-264 28.85 11.59 13.32

AP-16-270 26.25 11.94 13.62

AP-16-262 36.82 7.32 6.31

AP-16-270 42.8 4.78 5.9

AP-16-246 38.55 5.19 2.5


Ana Paula | Metallurgy

PEA:

• Crushing - grinding - gravity gold recovery - flotation - regrind - CIL - Dore

• Incorporated 6,000 tpd processing plant purchased last year

• Metallurgical recovery was estimated at 75% for gold

Current Test Program

• Comminution tests confirm 6,000 tpd crushing and milling plant suitable for processing Ana Paula ore

• Gravity gold recovery tests show 40-50% recovery in gravity concentrate

• Rougher flotation test work: >95% recovery with a 15-20% mass pull

• Pre-oxidation step ahead of CIL enhances gold recovery

• Overall gold recovery estimated at 80-85%

• More test work underway – variability and pre-oxidation conditions

• Very similar flowsheet to the PEA, limited additional capital expected to be required

10

6,000 tpd Mill Decommissioned and in

Storage


Ana Paula | Near Mine Exploration

11

Drill hole From To Interval (m) Au g/t Ag

g/t

AP-35 685.00 692.41 7.41 7.39 4.9

AP-70 677.50 692.50 15.00 26.09 21.1

AP-86 520.42 545.45 25.03 5.10 12.3

AP-97 550.16 562.50 12.34 32.11 3.6

AP-125 339.54 354.90 15.36 7.92 3.8

AP-137 320.60 368.18 47.58 5.45 4.1

AP-215 677.10 716.49 39.39 6.42 9.7

Below Pit Bottom Drill Highlights

• Potential to expand project by increasing resource base

• High grade breccia mineralization extends to depth Tenure of mineralization indicates good margins can be achieved with underground mining Multiple intercepts with grade sufficient to support underground mining Meaningful underground kicker to open-pit production


Ana Paula | Regional Exploration Upside

12

• 50,000 hectare land package with numerous potential targets


Greenfield Exploration – Ejutla, Oaxaca

13

Oaxaca

• Greenfield exploration site in highly prospective Oaxaca State, Mexico

• Evidence of epithermal gold-silver target

• Initial 5,000m drill program developed

• Potential pipeline project after Ana Paula build commences.


Timmins Value Opportunity

14Sources: (1) SF = consensus NAV; (2) AP = February 2, 2016 PEA; (3) Source: Capital IQ analyst consensus

~50% higher than current

share price

Platform for growth Pipeline of assets, all in Mexico San Francisco mine generating positive

cash flow High grade, high margin Ana Paula

project permitting and feasibility Balance sheet stable with US$34m cash

and no debt

2016 Results Mar 9, 2017

San Francisco Revitalization Plan Q2 2017

Ana Paula PFS Q2 2017

Ana Paula Permitting & Financing Q4 2017

Ana Paula DFS Q1 2018

Ana Paula Investment Decision Q2 2018

Key Catalysts

Attractive Valuation

Highlights

www.timminsgold.comTSX:TMM

NYSE MKT:TGD

Contact Us:Alex Tsakumis

Vice President Corporate [email protected]

604.638.8976


SF Mine / AP Project | Reserves & Resources

16

SAN FRANCISCO (1)Cut-off(g/t Au)

Tonnes(kt)

Gold Grade(g/t Au)

Silver Grade(g/t Ag)

Contained Gold(koz Au)

Contained Silver(koz Ag)

Proven & Probable Reserves (at $1,250/oz gold, with mining recovery & dilution)

San Francisco Pit – Proven 0.19 16,666 0.58 -- 313 --

San Francisco Pit – Probable 0.19 8,267 0.54 -- 144 --

La Chicharra Pit – Proven 0.21 6,596 0.51 -- 109 --

La Chicharra Pit – Probable 0.21 579 0.45 -- 8 --

Total 32,109 0.56 -- 574 --

Low Grade Stockpile 7,371 0.26 -- 61 --

Measured & Indicated Resources (at $1,350/oz gold)

San Francisco Pit – Measured 0.18 26,731 0.60 -- 515 --

San Francisco Pit – Indicated 0.18 15,239 0.61 -- 299 --

La Chicharra Pit – Measured 0.17 9,902 0.50 -- 160 --

La Chicharra Pit – Indicated 0.17 3,575 0.48 -- 55 --

Total 55,447 0.58 -- 1,029 --

San Francisco Pit – Inferred 0.18 246 0.72 -- 6 --

La Chicharra Pit – Inferred 0.17 79 0.43 -- 1 --

Source: (1) San Francisco NI 43-101 dated July 1, 2016; (2) Ana Paula PEA dated February 2, 2016

ANA PAULA (2)Cut-off(g/t Au)

Tonnes(kt)

Gold Grade(g/t Au)

Silver Grade(g/t Ag)

Contained Gold(koz Au)

Contained Silver(koz Ag)

Measured & Indicated Resources (at $1,450/oz gold and $23/oz silver)

Measured 0.46 22,767 1.61 4.90 1,177 3,587

Indicated 0.46 18,243 1.16 5.95 683 3,489

Total 41,010 1.41 5.37 1,859 7,076

Inferred 0.46 1,904 1.11 10.85 68 664


Cautionary Statement on Forward Looking Information

17

All figures are in US$ unless otherwise specified

Certain statements contained herein may constitute forward-looking statements (or “forward looking information”) and are made pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the United StatesPrivate Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements are statements which relate to future events. Such statements include estimates,forecasts and statements with respect to, among other things, business and financial prospects, financial multiples, accretion estimates, estimated future production and cash costs, futuretrends, plans, strategies, objectives and expectations, including with respect to costs, capital requirements, availability of financing, production, exploration and reserves and resources,projected production from the San Francisco Mine, the Ana Paula Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA), including estimated internal rate of return and projected production, exploitationactivities and potential and future operations. Information inferred from the interpretation of drilling results and information concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to beforward-looking statements, as it constitutes a prediction of what might be found to be present when, and if, a project is actually developed. In some cases, you can identify forward-lookingstatements by terminology such as “may”, “should”, “expects”, “plans, “anticipates”, believes”, “estimates”, “predicts”, “potential”, or “continue” or the negative of these terms or othercomparable terminology.

These forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions regarding the value of Timmins Gold’s assets; the successful completion of developmentprojects, planned expansions or other projects within the timelines anticipated and at anticipated production levels; the accuracy of reserve and resource, grade, mine life, cash cost, NPV andIRR estimates and other assumptions, projections and estimates made in the technical reports for San Francisco and Ana Paula; that mineral resources can be developed as planned; interestand exchange rates; that required financing will be obtained; general economic conditions; that labour disputes, flooding, ground instability, fire, failure of plant, equipment or processes tooperate as anticipated and other risks of the mining industry will not be encountered; the price of gold, silver and other metals; competitive conditions in the mining industry; title to mineralproperties; and changes in laws, rules and regulations applicable to Timmins Gold.

Although management of Timmins Gold believes that the assumptions made and the expectations represented by such statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that a forward-looking statement herein will prove to be accurate. Actual results and developments may differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained hereinand even if such actual results and developments are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences or effects. Factors whichcould cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include changes in market conditions; actual results being materially different than reserve and resource, grade, minelife, NPV, IRR and cash cost estimates and the other projections and estimates made in the technical reports for San Francisco and Ana Paula; variations in grade or recovery rates; risksrelating to international operations; fluctuations in gold, silver and other metal prices and currency exchange rates; failure to obtain required financing; inability to successfully completedevelopment projects, planned expansions or other projects within the timelines anticipated; natural disasters; adverse changes to general economic conditions or applicable laws, rules andregulations; changes in project parameters; the possibility of project cost overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses; labour disputes, flooding, ground instability, fire and other risks of themining industry; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; the risk of an undiscovered defect in title or other adverse claim; and the risk that results of explorationactivities will be different than anticipated.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information due to its inherent uncertainty. Except as required by applicable law, Timmins Gold does not intend to updateany forward-looking statements to conform these statements to actual results.


Important Information Regarding Technical Disclosure

18

Technical Disclosure – Timmins Gold

Taj Singh, M.Eng, P.Eng, CPA, a Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 and the Vice President of Business Development of Timmins Gold, approved the technical disclosure andverified the data disclosed regarding the San Francisco Mine and the Ana Paula project contained herein.

For more information regarding the San Francisco Mine, see the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 F1 Technical Report Updated Resources and Reserves and Mine Plan for the SanFrancisco Gold Project, Sonora, Mexico”, report date February 29, 2016 which is available on Timmins Gold’s SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com. Mineral resources were estimated using a cut-off grade of 0.20 g/t gold for the San Francisco deposit and and La Chicharra deposit. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

For more information regarding Ana Paula, see the Ana Paula PEA entitled “Ana Paula Project Preliminary Economic Assessment, Guerrero State, Mexico”, report date March 23, 2016 (re-addressed to Timmins Gold as of May 26, 2015) which is available on Timmins Gold’s SEDAR profile. Mineral resources were estimated using a 0.46 g/t AuEq cutoff. Mineral resources thatare not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

A reader is advised that the Ana Paula PEA has only been intended to provide an initial, high-level review of the project. The PEA mine plan and economic model include the use of inferredmineral resources which are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves andthere is no certainty that the PEA will be realized.

Cautionary Note to United States Investors

Timmins Gold is subject to the reporting requirements of the applicable Canadian securities laws, and as a result reports its mineral reserves and resources according to Canadian standards.Canadian reporting requirements for disclosure of mineral properties are governed by National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”). The definitions of NI 43-101 are adopted from those given bythe Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. U.S. reporting requirements are governed by Industry Guide 7 (“Guide 7”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).These reporting standards have similar goals in terms of conveying an appropriate level of confidence in the disclosures being reported, but embody different approaches and definitions. Forexample, under Industry Guide 7, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legallyproduced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. In particular, Timmins Gold reports “resources” in accordance with NI 43-101. While the terms “Mineral Resource”,“Measured Mineral Resource”, “Indicated Mineral Resource” and “Inferred Mineral Resource” are recognized and required by Canadian securities laws, they are not defined terms under Guide7 and, generally, U.S. companies are not permitted to report resources in documents filed with the SEC. As such, certain information contained in this presentation concerning descriptions ofmineralization and resources under Canadian standards is not comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of theSEC. In addition, an Inferred Mineral Resource has a great amount of uncertainty as to its existence and as to its economic and legal feasibility, and it cannot be assumed that all or any part ofan Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other economicstudies beyond Preliminary Economic Assessment. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves, and it cannot beassumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. In addition, the definitions of “Proven Mineral Reserves” and “Probable MineralReserves” under NI 43-101 differ in certain respects from the standards of Guide 7.

platform for growth tsx:tmm | nyse mkt:tgd...tsx: tmm nyse mkt: tgd cautionary statement on forward...

Documents