romarco corporate presentation - september 2011
TRANSCRIPT
Corporate Presenta,on September 2011
2
The information in this document has been prepared as of February 9, 2011. Certain statements contained in this document constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward looking information under the provisions of Canadian provincial securities laws. When used in this document, the words “anticipate”, “expect”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “will”, “planned”, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements or information. Specifically, this presentation contains forward looking statements regarding the results and projections contained in the February 2011 technical report of the Haile Gold project, including the expected mine life, recovery, capital costs, cash operating costs and other costs and anticipated production of the described open pit mine, the projected internal rate of return, the projected payback period, the availability of capital for development, sensitivity to metal prices, ore grade, the reserve and resource estimates on the project, the financial analysis, the timing for completion of the revised feasibility study on the Haile Gold project, the timing and amount of future production, the timing of construction of the proposed mine and process facilities, capital and operating expenditures, the timing of the receipt of permits, rights and authorizations, communications with local stakeholders and community relations, availability of financing and any and all other timing, development, operational, financial, economic, legal, regulatory and political factors that may influence future events or conditions and expected drilling activities. In addition, this presentation also contains updated resource estimates contained in the February 2011 technical reports. Scientific and technical information referred herein has been extracted from and are hereby qualified in their entirety by reference to the aforementioned technical reports (“Technical Reports”). Joshua Snider, P.E., Thomas L. Drielick, P.E., Lee “Pat” Gochnour, M.M.S.A., John Marek, P.E. and Derek Wittwer, P.E. are responsible for preparing the Technical Reports. Each of the above referenced persons is a “qualified person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 — Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. Such forward‐looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions, including, but not limited in any manner, those disclosed in any aother of Romarco’s public filings, and include the ultimate determination of mineral reserves and resources, availability and final receipt of required approvals, licenses and permits, sufficient working capital to develop and operate the proposed mine, access to adequate services and supplies, economic conditions, commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, access to capital and debt markets and associated cost of funds, availability of a qualified work force, lack of social opposition and legal challenges, and the ultimate ability to mine, process and sell mineral products on economically favorable terms. While Romarco considers these assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect. Actual results may vary from such forward‐looking information for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to risks and uncertainties disclosed in other Romarco filings at www.sedar.com. Forward‐looking statements are based upon management’s beliefs, estimate and opinions on the date the statements are made and, other than as required by law, Romarco does not intend, and undertakes no obligation to update any forward‐looking information to reflect, among other things, new information or future events Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources: Certain tables may use the terms “Measured”, “Indicated” and “Inferred” Resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, however, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an 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 economic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves. United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of a Mineral Resource is economically or legally mineable.
All figures are US$ unless otherwise indicated
Cau,onary Statement
History of Carolina Gold Mining / Community Involvement
4
Local Community – Town of Kershaw
HAILE GOLD MINE – Mining History
§ First Gold rush before California § Carolinas led US Gold produc,on un,l 1848
§ Second US Mint in CharloPe, NC § Original 49’ers came from East Coast § Significant gold produc,on in 80’s-‐90’s § Mining part of local history/community § 500 ac,ve mines in South Carolina today
CAROLINA SLATE BELT
Tennessee
Kentucky West Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
South Carolina
Buzzard
Elm
Hickory Ironwood
Bayberry
Locust
Russell Mine
Reed Mine Howie Mine
Brewer Mine
Ridgeway Mine Dorn Mine
Bante Mine Tathom Mine
Columbia Mine
Magruder Mine
Haile Mine
6
Located in Mining Friendly Jurisdic,on
§ Romarco con,nues to build strong local rela,onships and support ê High local unemployment ê Romarco hires locally
• 113 employees + 30 contractors ê $1 million/month spent locally
Ongoing Community Involvement
Strong Community Support
§ Strong State and local support for Haile ê Drill permits received in <2 weeks (650 holes)
ê No Federal, State or local opposiOon to date ê State offered tax incenOves
• $3M in annual savings • Tax reducOon from 10% to 4%
§ Permi]ng ê Federal (404) -‐ SUBMITTED
• Wetlands ê State (South Carolina)
• Mining / operaOng permit – SUBMITTED - Water treatment permit - Storm water permit - Air permit
• Water (401) – SUBMITTED
Awards
From le( to right:
• 2010 OUTSTANDING BUSINESS AWARD presented to HAILE GOLD MINE by Kershaw Chamber of Commerce
• 2011 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR presented to DIANE GARRETT by Kershaw Chamber of Commerce
• 2011 COMMUNITY CITIZENSHIP AWARD presented to DAVID THOMAS by Mining Associa:on of South Carolina
Romarco Overview
8
Romarco – Company Overview
§ Romarco is a gold development company focused on produc,on primarily in the U.S.
§ The Company’s flagship project is the Haile Gold Mine in South Carolina ê Feasibility study completed ê Permits pending ê System remains open in all direcOons at depth
§ Experienced board, management & technical team
Company Descrip,on
Exchange/ Symbol TSX:R
Share Price(1) C$1.47
Shares Outstanding (Basic) 503.3M
FD Shares Outstanding (TSM)(2) 520.7M
Market CapitalizaOon(1) C$740M
52 Week High / Low(1) C$2.88 / C$1.30
Cash Balance (June 30, 2011) US$63M (1) As at close on September 9, 2011 (2) Calculated using treasury stock method. Includes 5.6mm “in-‐the-‐money” op:ons at an
average strike price of C$0.53 as of June 30, 2011
Capitaliza,on Summary
Project Loca,on
181 Bay St. Suite 3630, Toronto, ON, M5J 2T3 │Email: [email protected] │Office: 416.367.5500 │Fax: 416.367.5505 │Website: www.romarco.com
Atlantic Ocean
SOUTH CAROLINA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte
Myrtle Beach Columbia
Haile Mine
• Romarco controls 11,000+ acres of 100% private land
• Surface, mineral and water rights • ~ 9,900 acres owned fee simple
9
Strong Board, Management and Technical Team § Proven gold mine development, finance, permi]ng and opera,ons experience
ê Romarco has the team in place to bring Haile into producOon
Experienced Board of Directors Strong Management & Technical Team
Edward A. van Ginkel, Chairman § Consultant, former Noranda, Dayton Mining Diane R. GarreP § Former Dayton Mining, US Global Investors James R. Arnold § Former Freeport, Gold Fields – Richards Award Winner Leendert Krol § Former Brazuro, Newmont Don MacDonald § CFO QuadraFNX, former NovaGold, DeBeers, Dayton Mining John Marsden § Consultant, former Freeport – Richards Award Winner Patrick Michaels § Porgolio Manager – Zuri-‐invest, Switzerland Robert van Doorn § Former Mundoro, Rio Narcea, Morgan Stanley
Diane R. GarreP, Ph.D., President & CEO § Former Dayton Mining, US Global Investors James R. Arnold, Sr. VP, COO § Former Freeport, Gold Fields – Richards Award Winner Stan Rideout, Sr. VP, CFO § Former Phelps Dodge James Berry, Chief Geologist & Regional Explora,on Manager § Former Barrick Brent Anderson, Mine Manager § Former Quadra, Freeport Kevin Russell, Regional Geologist § Former Barrick Jim Wickens, Process Manager § Former Barrick OP Jackson, Health & Safety § Former Freeport Johnny Pappas, Director of Environmental Affairs § Former Freeport Ramona Schneider, Environmental Manager § Former Kinross Dan Symons, Manager Investor Rela,ons § Former Renmark Financial
10
Resource Growth
US$950 PITS
2 0 1 0
PLAN VIEW
HAILE LONG SECTION
3.5 KM
US$950 PIT LIMITS
601 CHAMPION SMALL SOUTH PIT LEDBETTER SNAKE HORSESHOE
11
Introduc,on to the Haile Gold Mine Project
FEBRUARY 2011 § Feasibility completed
$275 million § One of lowest capital cost projects in industry
$379/oz ($347/oz first 5 years) § One of lowest operating cost projects in industry
2.06 g/t § One of highest grade open-pit projects in industry
12
Low Capital Cost
* All figures are in millions of dollars (1) Source: Company Disclosure
Peers include direct and indirect costs, con:ngency funding and previously sunk development capital (sustaining capital not included)
Development Capex for Primary Open Pit Asset (US$mm) (1)
13
Low Cash Cost
(1) Source: GFMS presenta:on, Gold Survey 2010 Update (2) Announced February 9, 2011
$559!
$379! $426!
$0!
$100!
$200!
$300!
$400!
$500!
$600! LOWEST QUARTILE AVERAGE CASH COST IN 2010 (1)
Industry Average (1) ROMARCO ��� LOM Average (2)
Lowest Quartile (1)
14
High Reserve Grade for Open Pit
Reserve Grade for Primary Open Pit Asset (g/t Au) (1)
(1) Source: BMO Capital Markets
Environmental / Permi]ng
16
Environmental Opera,ons Team
Consultants
JIM ARNOLD Sr. VP., COO & Director P.E., B.Sc. Metallurgical Engineering
JOHNNY PAPPAS Director of Environmental Affairs
RAMONA SCHNEIDER Environmental Manager
James R. Arnold is the current Senior Vice President and Chief OperaOng Officer of Romarco. Mr. Arnold was recently Vice President, Colorado OperaOons for Freeport-‐McMoRan where he led the Climax re-‐start project through feasibility, engineering, staffing and construcOon. Prior to there he was V.P. Technical Services for Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp. and also held the posiOon of General Manager for Kinross’ Goldbanks Project and Manager of Santa Fe Pacific Gold’s Twin Creeks project in Nevada. Mr. Arnold holds a degree in Metallurgical Engineering from University of Idaho and an M.S. degree in Engineering Management.
Johnny Pappas has a disOnguished career in the field of environmental management and perminng. Mr. Pappas recently held the posiOon of Environmental Manager of the Climax Mine and was Permit Coordinator for Barrick’s Cortez Gold Mines. In addiOon, he has held several Senior Environmental Engineer posiOons with Pacificorp, Plateau Mining, and Santa Fe Pacific Gold. Mr. Pappas is recognized as a leader in his field and has won numerous awards including the 2003 “Best of the Best” Award – awarded by the Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining in recogniOon for extraordinary personal commitment and outstanding contribuOon for the reclamaOon success at the Castle Gate Mine and the 2003 “Excellence in Surface Coal Mining ReclamaOon” Award.
Ramona Schneider has been with the Haile Gold Mine since 1990 working for Piedmont Mining Company, AMAX Gold, and Kinross Gold. As Environmental Manager, Ms. Schneider is responsible for
perminng, maintaining current permits and regulatory compliance, organizing closure sampling programs, preparing regulatory reporOng documents, monitoring reclamaOon projects, and managing the baseline programs.
• Gochnour & Associates Pat Gochnour
• Kennedy ConsulMng Services Craig Kennedy
• AMEC Earth and Environmental
• Tetra Tech
• Schlumberger Water Services
• Schafer Limited
• Arcadis
• Genesis ConsulMng Group
• Ecological Resources Consultants
• Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX)
• McNair Law Firm
• C.A. Clark ConsulMng, LLC Catherine Clark
• Venable LLP
17
Environmental Impact Statement Process
§ Contractor (3rd Party) Selec,on § No,ce of Intent to prepare an EIS published in the Federal Register § 30 day no,ce period § Public Scoping Mee,ng § Drap EIS § 45 day public review and comment period § 3rd Party Contractor responds to comments § Final EIS includes comments, amendments if necessary § 30 day minimum comment period § Record of Decision (ROD)
18
EIS Posi,ves
§ Eliminates poten,al challenge to EA decision § Approximate 12 month delay of start-‐up § Explora,on con,nues
ê PotenOal to increase reserves and grade ê Further define Mustang & underground
ê Reduce strip raOo ê Further define mineralizaOon between deposits
ê AddiOonal Ome to opOmize mine plan with new resource & reserve model ê Within exisOng permit area and 7,000 tpd mill
ê More Ome to define and study underground targets § More ,me to value engineer plant design
19
HGM Permi]ng
• 404 Wetlands Permit only • USACE is sole deciding regulatory body
• All other agencies commenOng agencies only – EPA, US Fish and Wildlife, etc.
• 401 Water Quality CerOficaOon
• Mining Permit • OperaOng Permit • Air Quality Permit • Others
Federal – USACE* State – DHEC**
* US Army Corps of Engineers���** South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
20
Wetlands at Haile Property
Typical Palustrine Emergent Wetland
21
Wetlands at Haile Property
Typical Palustrine Forested Wetland (inundated)
22
Streams at Haile Property
Non-‐RelaOvely Permanent Waters (intermisent stream channel)
23
Streams at Haile Property
HAILE GOLD MINE CREEK
24
Clear Plan to Bring Haile Into Produc,on
§ Strong balance sheet with approximately $63M in cash and no debt(1)
§ Well defined project schedules and clear development milestones
Haile Milestones and Status Report
Milestone / AcOvity Status Complete feasibility study P State operaOng permit submised P
401/404 permit submised P
Resource / reserve report P
Expand Haile & Horseshoe 2011
Acquire other properOes 2011
Explore regional targets 2011
(1) As at June 30, 2011
Project Schedule for EIS
2011 2012 2013 2014
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Feasibility Study
OpOmizaOon
Perminng
ConstrucOon
ProducOon
ExploraOon
Explora,on Upside Value Drivers
Aerial of Haile
Aerial of Haile
Significant Remaining Explora,on Upside Poten,al
§ 2010 drill program of 108,000m confirmed resource at Haile remains open along strike and at depth ê 40% of 2010 drilling focused on condemnaOon drilling to locate suitable tailings site
2010 Highlights
§ M&I resources increased 44% § M&I grade increased 21% (to 1.82 g/t) § M&I tonnes increased 20% § Inferred resources declined 46%
ê Conversion to indicated § Inferred grade increased 33% (to 1.34 g/t) § 2P reserves increased 54%
!"#$$%
&'"$$$%
($!"$$$%
(&)"$$$%
!"
#!$!!!"
%!$!!!"
&!$!!!"
'!$!!!"
(!!$!!!"
(#!$!!!"
(%!$!!!"
(&!$!!!"
('!$!!!"
#!!$!!!"
*+,+-.%/
0%1-23324
5%
2008 2009 2010 2011
28
29
601 CHAMPION SMALL SOUTH PIT LEDBETTER SNAKE HORSESHOE
US$950 PIT LIMITS
Significant Remaining Explora,on Upside Poten,al
HAILE LONG SECTION
DEEP HORSESHOE ZONE
SNAKE DEEP ZONE
MUSTANG MILL ZONE EXTENSION
US$950 PITS
30
$1200 Resource Shell
$1200 Resource Shell
$950 Pit Feasibility
N
31
New Regional Explora,on Targets
§ 3 in South Carolina ê Bayberry – currently drilling
ê Similar host rocks, alteraOon and mineralizaOon as observed at Haile
ê 74 shallow rotary holes, 8 RC holes, and 8 core holes previously drilled on the property
ê Historical Reported, highlighted intercepts include: ê 7.0 meters of 4.3 g/t ê 26.0 meters of 1.8 g/t ê 12.0 meters of 1.2 g/t ê 7.3 meters of 1.8 g/t
ê Locust – drill ready ê Small historical oxide resource (pre 43-‐101) ê 34 RC and 27 core holes have been drilled on the property
ê Historical Reported, highlighted intercepts include: ê 71.5 meters of 2.9 g/t ê 5.1 meters of 1.5 g/t ê 74.6 meters of 1.5 g/t ê 65.0 meters of 1.9 g/t
ê Elm ê Property is ready for soil and rock chip sampling ê Preliminary rock chip sampling has yielded 8.6 g/t
Tennessee
Kentucky West Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
South Carolina
Haile Mine Buzzard
Elm
Hickory Ironwood
Bayberry
Locust
32
New Regional Explora,on Targets
§ 2 in North Carolina ê Hickory – mobilizing rig
ê Historical producOon during 1800s ê Historical drilling consists of 11 core holes and 130
RC holes ê Historical Reported, highlighted intercepts include:
ê 19.8 meters of 4.7 g/t ê 21.3 meters of 4.0 g/t ê 22.9 meters of 3.4 g/t ê 17.0 meters of 2.1 g/t
ê Ironwood – drill ready ê The highest grade encountered in the trenching was
9.1 g/t ê Twelve shallow RC holes and two core holes have
been drilled ê Historical Reported, highlighted intercepts include:
ê 3.0 meters of 4.4 g/t
Tennessee
Kentucky West Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
South Carolina
Haile Mine Buzzard
Elm
Hickory Ironwood
Bayberry
Locust
Feasibility
34
Near Term, Low Cost Gold Producer
§ Posi,ve feasibility study on Haile announced on Feb. 9, 2011
§ Strong project economics with robust IRR and NPV at conserva,ve gold prices ê Low cash cost operaOon ê Manageable, low cost capital requirements
§ Posi,ve feasibility study does not include ê Horseshoe ê Snake Deep ê Mustang ê Mill Zone extensions ê 601 ê Inferred resources within US$950 Pit
§ Open all direc,ons and at depth § 2011 economic studies
ê Underground PEA
Summary of Haile Feasibility Study (US$950 Gold)
2 P Gold Reserves (‘000 oz) 2,018 Recovery Rate (%) 83.7 Net Recoverable Gold (‘000 oz) 1,681
Annual Mill Throughput (‘000 t) 2,555
Daily Mill Throughput (tpd) 7,000 Mine Life (years) 13.25 Overall Strip RaOo (waste:ore) 7.2:1 Average Feed Grade to Mill (LOM) (g/t) 2.06 Average ProducOon (year 1) (‘000 oz) 172
Average ProducOon (years 1 -‐ 5) (‘000 oz) 150
Cash Costs (year 1-‐5) (US$/oz) 347 Cash Costs (LOM) (US$/oz) 379 IniOal Capital Expenditures (US$M) 275.5 Sustaining Capital Expenditures (US$M) 119.2 Net Present Value (5% discount)
Pre-‐Tax (US$M) 279 Internal Rate of Return
Pre-‐Tax (%) 19.6
35
NPV & IRR Sensi,vity to Gold Price
Gold Price Per oz.
NPV @0% NPV @ 5% NPV @ 10% IRR % PAYBACK YEARS
$2000 $2,261 $1,521 $1,058 69.3% 1.4
$1900 $2,094 $1,403 $970 64.9% 1.5
$1800 $1,927 $1,285 $883 60.5% 1.6
$1700 $1,760 $1,166 $796 56.1% 1.7
$1600 $1,593 $1,048 $708 51.6% 1.8
$1500 $1,426 $930 $621 47.0% 2.0
$1400 $1,259 $811 $534 42.3% 2.2
$1300 $1,092 $693 $447 37.6% 2.4
$1200 $925 $575 $359 32.7% 2.7
$1100 $758 $457 $272 27.6% 3.1
$1000 $591 $339 $185 22.3% 3.8
$950 $507 $279 $141 19.6% 4.2
$800 $257 $102 $10 10.7% 7.6
$700 $90 ($16) ($77) 4.0% 9.4
Pre-‐tax NPV and IRR Sensi,vity to Gold Price (1)
($ Millions, except gold price)
(1) As per parameters used in February 9, 2011 Feasibility Technical Report
36
Clear Plan to Bring Haile Into Produc,on
Design Overflow & Process Descrip,on
§ Conven,onal opera,on § Simple flowsheet § Off-‐the-‐shelf
technology § Ability to expand
project scale to include addi,onal resource discoveries
Design Overflow Process Descrip,on
§ Robust “Simple” Flowsheet Crush Grind Flota,on
§ Proven Technologies Regrind Flot Con Leach Con
§ Flexible, Expandable Leach Flot Tail Recover both
§ Non-‐Refractory CN Detox Tail Storage Facility
§ Off-‐The-‐Shelf Technology Standard Carbon Elu,ons, EW
§ No Long Lead Time Units
37
Clear Plan to Bring Haile Into Produc,on
Mill Plant Facility Rendering
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
TRUCK WASH
HAUL TRUCK FUELING STATION
PRIMARY CRUSHER OVERLAND CONVEYOR
STOCKPILE
MILL BUILDING
TAILING
LEACHING
38
Kershaw Mineral Lab
§ $5 million investment § 1.5 km from Haile § U,lized for internal purposes only
§ Increases turnaround ,me for assays § Enhances explora,on efficiency § Metallurgical testwork for increasing recoveries
§ All assays disseminated to public are completely by third party independent lab § Accredita,on process underway. First round completed successfully.
§ Accredita,on expected by year end 2012
Valua,on
40
Analyst Coverage
§ 6 Analysts Covering Romarco
ANALYSTS
Paradigm Capital $3.10
BMO Capital Markets $3.00
GMP SecuriOes $2.50
NBF $2.50
RBC Capital Markets $2.25
CIBC World Markets $1.55
12 Month Target Price
41
P/NAV vs Peer Group
§ Romarco trades at a discount to its developer peers on a P/NAV basis(1)
3
!"#$%&%'!()!*+,,-.'!/0123!4+5'%65-7)!"8-,9%.9!:;5<!/,;<+=-,7!
!"!!#
!"$%#
!"%!#
!"&%#
'"!!#
'"$%#
'"%!#
'"&%#
()*+,-./*0 1*+/*) 234)536+ 738).93 5:;)*)
536+</=6+,
>:.3-=)*
56+<6+,
>8=.0/*0
140
?.=6)@*=; 7)/*;
7/4=.
5.=;,A). 5)B./=6
7=,
21C?/=.CDDD
E.3+C140
F=A3:.
536+
21C?/=.CDD
E.3+C140
(3:.9=GC7HICI)-/A)6CJ).K=A,CD*9"C
"#$%&%'!>)!?;,-=@7'!A6-,@'%;.7)!B@%5-!4%.-!/,;C-='!
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E
Gol
d Pr
oduc
tion
(oz)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
Tota
l Cas
h Co
sts
(US$
/oz)
Ounces Produced Total Cash Costs (RHS)
(3:.9=GC7HICI)-/A)6CJ).K=A,C=,A/8)A=,C
Romarco Minerals Inc.July 4, 2011
Source: RBC Capital Markets Inc., as at July 5, 2011
42
P/NAV vs Peer Group
NovaGold
Romarco
Greystar
Andina
Guyana GF
Detour Gold
Gabriel
Premier Gold
Trelawney
Rainy River
European Goldfields
0.5x
0.7x
0.9x
1.1x
1.3x
1.5x
0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0EV / In Situ (US$ 000s / oz)
P / N
AV
AmarilloBelo Sun
CassidyExeter
Fronteer
Goldstone
Grayd
Int. Tower Hill
Keegan
Luna
Coral
Midway
Northern Freegold
Northern Gold
Orezone
PedimentPMI
Riverstone ResourcesRye Patch
Temex
US Gold Corp
Victoria
Vior
Volta Resources
Rainy River
Romarco
Detour
Osisko
Andina
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3Gold Grade (g/t)
EV /
Oz
(US$
/oz)
050100
150
200 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
050100
150
200 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)Total Resources
50 Mozs 20 Mozs 10 Mozs
050100
150
200 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
050100
150
200 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
5 Mozs
AmarilloBelo Sun
CassidyExeter
Fronteer
Goldstone
Grayd
Int. Tower Hill
Keegan
Luna
Coral
Midway
Northern Freegold
Northern Gold
Orezone
PedimentPMI
Riverstone ResourcesRye Patch
Temex
US Gold Corp
Victoria
Vior
Volta Resources
Rainy River
Romarco
Detour
Osisko
Andina
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
0.3 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3Gold Grade (g/t)
EV /
Oz
(US$
/oz)
Geography
Russia, E. Europe, N. Africa
BC, Alaska, Other
Fronteer
Central Rand
Witsgold
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Ontario, Quebec, Chile, Nevada, Brazil, Guyana
Average P / NAV: 0.8x
Average EV / In Situ Oz (US$ 000s): $97/oz
050100
150
200 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
Australia, West/South Africa, Mexico
Source: RBC Equity Research, Company Information as at July 5, 2011 Note: Average figures include Romarco
43
Summary
§ Near term, low cost gold producer with strong project economics
§ Located in a mining friendly jurisdicOon with excellent infrastructure
§ Large resource with significant remaining exploraOon upside potenOal
§ Strong board, management and technical team
§ Clean plan to bring Haile into producOon
§ Solid cash posiOon (~ US$63 million), no debt – as of June 30, 2011
§ 11 drill rigs – 172,000 meters drilling scheduled for 2011 (~US$30 million)
§ Haile system remains open in all direcOons at depth
44
Romarco Minerals Inc. Brookfield Place
181 Bay Street, Suite 3630 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T3
Tel: 416.367.5500 Fax: 416.367.5505
Email: [email protected] Website: www.romarco.com
Dan Symons Manager, Investor RelaOons [email protected]
Contact Informa,on Head Office Informa,on