stibnite gold project idaho, usa · 2017-03-16 · 9 - world’s largest royalty company • us$15m...

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


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


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


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


$-

$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


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


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)


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


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


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

stibnite gold project idaho, usa · 2017-03-16 · 9 - world’s largest royalty company • us$15m...

Documents