stibnite gold project - s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com...the presentation has been prepared by midas...
Post on 09-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Stibnite Gold ProjectIdaho, USA
MAX.TSXMDRPF.OTCQX
SEPTEMBER 2017
Forward Looking Statements
Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively, "Forward-Looking Information") within themeaning 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, disclosureregarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action; and the plans for completion of the Offerings,expected use of proceeds and business objectives. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as "anticipates", "expects", "understanding","has agreed to" or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results "would", "occur" or "be achieved". Although Midas Gold has attempted to identifyimportant factors that could affect Midas Gold and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factorsthat 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 andfuture 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,Midas Gold does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof orto reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
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 bematerially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factors include, among others, theindustry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the 2014 prefeasibility study and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and theexpected 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 phenomenaand other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules and regulations; impact of environmentalremediation 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 ofmineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; the nature ofmineral 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 obtainnecessary 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 inenvironmental 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; risksrelated 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. Althoughthe 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 Informationwill 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 toreflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Cautionary NoteThe 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 priorto making any investment decisions.All references to “dollars” or “$” shall mean United States dollars unless otherwise specified. Exchange rates and share prices used, where appropriate, are based on the spot prices as of Feb. 19th, 2016.
2
Highlights: Midas Gold & the Stibnite Gold Project
(1, 2)
WORLD CLASSGOLD PROJECT
(1, 2)
• Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction
• Brownfields site › Restoration of extensive prior disturbance• Positive Pre-Feasibility Study › US$832 million NPV & 19.3%
IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate) at $1,350/oz gold• Multi-million ounce deposit › 8th largest gold reserve in USA• Size › 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life• Superior grade › 1.6g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit
deposit in USA• Scale › 388,000oz gold/year for first 4 years & 337,000oz
gold/year LOM• Modest capital intensity › US$242/oz life of mine production• Low all-in sustaining costs › $US526/oz for first 4 years (cash
cost + royalties + sustaining capital)• Strong after-tax cash flow › US$294 million/year (Years 1-4)
& US$254 million/year (Years 1-8)• Strategic by-products › Antimony + silver with production
proven metallurgy• Exploration potential › All deposits open to expansion and
multiple exploration prospects already drilled
STRENGTH & SUPPORT
• Community Support › Strong local and state support
• Financial Support › Paulson, Franco-Nevada and Teck
• Corporate Depth › Experienced management team and strong boards with local, state & federal connections
• Well Funded › ~US$31 million cash at June 30, 2017
(1) The Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) is intended to be read as a whole and sectionsshould not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in thispresentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained inthe PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
(2) See non-IFRS measures at conclusion
In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands, all amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine
3
24%
21%
12%3%
40%
Shareholders
Institutional High Net Worth Individuals
Teck and Vista Directors and Management
Retail and Other
• IPO in 2011 with sole focus on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project, Idaho, USA• ~US$142.7m spent on the Project since 2009
› ~102,000m of drilling by Midas Gold› ~136,400m of drilling pre-Midas Gold› Prefeasibility study complete, feasibility underway› 3+ years of environmental baseline data collected› Permitting for mine development underway
• 186 million shares issued• Major institutional shareholders include:
› Franklin› Gabelli› M&G
• Franco Nevada purchased a 1.7% NSR in 2013• Teck purchased 9.9% stake in 2013• Paulson backstopped C$55 million financing in March 2016• Experienced management team and strong boards with local connections
›Sun Valley›VanEck
› Teck Corp.› Vista Gold
Midas Gold4
Stibnite Gold Project
Low geopolitical risk in a high risk worldStibnite Gold ProjectMidas Gold Au-Sb
Thompson Creek MineCenterra Gold Inc.
Molybdenum
Phosphate DistrictAgrium, Monsanto, Simplot, Stonegate
Sunshine MineSunshine Silver Mines
Silver
Lucky Friday MineHecla Mining Company
Silver-Lead-Zinc
Idaho Cobalt ProjecteCobalt Solutions
Copper-Cobalt
Coeur d’Alene
Cascade
BOISE
IDAHO
McCall
(1) Fraser Institute Survey
A mining friendly State Well defined permitting process Strong community support Low geopolitical risk
Idaho: The Right Place
(1, 2)
#4 RankedMining Jurisdiction
in USA (1)
(1, 2)
Idaho is the 2nd
largest Phosphate mining district
in the USA
Stibnite Gold Project
6
Indicated Inferred
2.8 Moz1.93 g/t Au
0.1% Sb
0.4 Moz1.31 g/t Au
Indicated Inferred
1.1 Moz1.60 g/t Au
0.1%Sb
0.4 Moz1.52 g/t Au
0.1% Sb
Indicated Inferred
0.3 Moz1.15 g/t Au
1.5 Moz1.30 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 and December 15, 2014 for full details on the resource and reserve estimates.
ProbableReserves:2.5 Moz
1.97 g/t Au0.1% Sb
Probable Reserves:0.7 Moz
1.53 g/t Au0.13% Sb
Probable Reserves:1.3 Moz
1.22 g/t Au
Plus reserves of 102,000 oz at a grade of 1.17 g/t Au & 0.16% Sb in historic tailings
Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz Au + 137Mlbs Sb included in INDICATED 5.5Moz Au, 155Mlb Sb and INFERRED 1.1 Moz Au & 26Mlbs Sb RESOURCE
World Class Mineral Resources & Reserves*(September 10, 2014 / December 15, 2014; “M” = millions)
7
* 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
$483 $568
$1,350 Cash Costs vs. Gold Price (US$/oz) (2)
Years 1-4 LOM Gold Price
$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
= $242/oz produced
Positive Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS)*December 2014 (at US$1,350 gold)
8
Largest USGold Resources
M&I000s oz Gold
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
Newmont Nevada
Barric Cortez
Barrick Goldstrike
Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)*
Round Mountain
Fort Knox
Stibnite Gold (Life-of-mine)*
Pogo
Cripple Creek
Leeville
Bingham Canyon
Turquoise Ridge
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 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
Barrick Cortez
* Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study
Largest USGold Mines
2012Production
000s oz Gold
Largest USGold Mine Reserves
000s oz Gold
Highest GradeUS Open PitGold Mines
g/t
One of the largest, best grade gold projectsin the USA
9
Antimony Uses (USGS)
Supply Risk - China dominates world antimony• 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 2016 (USGS)
Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)
Strategic By-Products:Potential by-product credits from antimony
Australia3% Bolivia
3%Burma
2%
China76%
Russia7%
Tajikistan6%
Turkey2%
Vietnam1%
Flame Retardants
60%
Batteries & Alloys20%
Other Uses20%
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
2012
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
2013
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
2014
Q1
2015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
2015
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Q4
2016
Q1
2017
Q2
2017
Average Antimony Price/quarter (US$/lb)
10
Peer Comparisons
Stibnite Gold Project vs. comparable explorers/developers
15.5
10.9 10.79.5 8.9
6.2
2.41.6 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
Pret
ium
MAG
Silv
er
Dalra
dian
Hart
e Go
ld
Pure
Gol
d
Sabi
na
Falc
o
Mid
as G
old
Atla
ntic
Gol
d
Belo
Sun
Libe
rty
Gold
Gold
Stan
dard
Vict
oria
Gol
d
Rye
Patc
h
Resource Grade (g/t AuEq)
Source: Macquarie Capital
open pitunderground404
335
236205 200 200 198 192
87 7550 47
Pret
ium
Mid
as G
old
Falc
o
Belo
Sun
Vict
oria
Gol
d
Sabi
na
Dalra
dian
MAG
Silv
er
Atla
ntic
Gol
d
Rye
Patc
h
Hart
e Go
ld
Pure
Gol
d
LOM Annual Production (000s oz AuEq)
12
Cortez
Canadian Malartic
Detour Lake Round Mountain
Musselwhite
Hemlo
Bald Mountain
Young-Davidson
Marigold
Casa Berardi
Kettle River-Buckhorn
Kensington
Mesquite
Goldex
Westwood
Golden Sunlight
Wharf
Black Fox
Seabee
Holt
STIBNITE
0
2
4
6
8
10
400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Gra
de (g
/t A
u)
Cash Cost (US$/oz Au)
Comparison of Stibnite gold project expectations (grade, cash cost and output) with selected large-scale gold mines
Source: SNL Financial and Haywood Securities
Higher Cash Costs
High
er G
rade
Stibnite Gold Project vs. other large-scale gold mines
bubble size = annual output oz/year
Black outline on bubble = underground
13
Stibnite Gold Projectvs. other open pit development projects
AlgoldBarsele
Cardinal
Gold Standard
Nighthawk
Almaden*
Liberty
MIDAS GOLD
Newcastle
Orla
Atlantic
Belo Sun
Gold Road
Lydian*
Trek
Victoria
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
M&
I+I R
esou
rce
Size
(000
s oz)
Grade (M&I+I)
Resource Stage PEA/PFS Stage FS/Constr Stage
bubble size = EV/oz Valuation (M&I+I)
* Gold EquivalentSource: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets
Higher Grade
Larg
er R
esou
rce
14
Algold
Barsele
Cardinal
Gold Standard
Nighthawk
Almaden*
Liberty
MIDAS GOLD
Newcastle
Orla
Atlantic
Belo Sun
Gold Road
Lydian*
Trek
Victoria
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
EV/o
z Val
uatio
n U
S$ (M
&I+
I)
M&I+I Resource Size (000s oz)* Gold EquivalentSource: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets
Resource Stage PEA/PFS Stage FS/Constr Stage
bubble size = Grade (M&I+I)
Stibnite Gold Project Valuationvs. other open pit development projects
Larger Resource
High
er V
alua
tion
15
Stibnite Gold Project Valuationvs. other open pit development projects
› Enterprise value of current and acquired open pit projects vs. grade
Source: ThomsonOne, Company reports, RBC Capital Markets * Au equivalent
IAG (Trelawney)
AR (Prodigy)
NGD (RR) EDV (Avnel)
OSK (Queenston)
PPP (Cerro)
AKG (PMI)
Rio Alto (Sulliden)
B2Gold (Papillon)
GG (Probe)
SMF (Orbis)TMM (Newstrike)
OGC (Romarco)
GG (Kaminak)
Fortuna (Goldrock)
TGZ (Gryphon)
Algold
Barsele
Cardinal
Gold Standard
Lumina
Nighthawk
Skeena
Almaden*
Liberty
MIDAS GOLD
Newcastle
Orecorp
Atlantic
Belo Sun
Gold Road
Lydian*
Trek
Victoria
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
EV/o
z (M
&I+
I)
Grade (g/t M&I+I)
Current peer average = $62/oz
Average takeover EV/oz since 2012 = $70/oz
FS/Construction stage
Previous acquisition multiples
PEA/PFS stageResource stage
16
Detour
Alacer
Asanko
Guyana
Roxgold
TMAC
Torex
Continental
Dalradian
Integra
Midas
Pretium
Sabina
AlmadenDacian
Goldquest
IDM
INV
Luna
Pure Gold
Atlantic
Belo SunVictoria
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Afte
r-ta
x IR
R in
cl. 4
0% ta
keov
er p
rem
ium
Annual Gold Production
Pre-production: 12%
Producing: 5%
- pre production asset- producing asset
Estimated IRRs at $1,300/oz gold for potential takeout candidates – including a 40% takeover premium to current market value
Higher Production
High
er R
etur
n
(000s oz)
Illustrates discount to NAV
On average, RBC calculates an IRR of 12% to buy and build a project vs. 5% to buy an existing single asset producer
Source: ThomsonOne, Company Reports, RBC Capital Markets estimates
Stibnite Gold ProjectProduction scale
- 2016 position
17
Value Opportunities
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
US$1,200/oz Au US$1,350/oz Au US$1,500/oz Au
Net
Ass
et V
alue
(US$
Mill
ions
)
NAV
PS (U
S$)
Net Asset Value NAVPS
Substantial NPV & Leverage To
Gold Price
NAV Sensitivities (US$)US$1,200/oz Au(1) US$1,350/oz Au(2) US$1,500/oz Au(3)
Project NPV5% $513M $832M $1,129M
Cash on Hand $42M $42M $42M
Net Asset Value $555M $874M $1,171M
NAVPS(4) $1.75 $2.75 $3.69
(1) PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag, $4.00/lb Sb, after-tax
(2) PFS Case B (Base Case): $1,350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb, after-tax
(3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb, after-tax
(4) Assumes debentures converted to common shares
Source: Midas Gold December 2014 PFS
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650
Proj
ect N
PV (U
S$ m
illio
ns)
Gold Price ($/oz)
5% After-Tax
0% After-Tax
0% Pre Tax
Enterprise Value~US $125m
Leverage to gold price19
• Re-rating opportunity as fully permitted projects attract higher valuation multiples• While some make it to production (e.g. Pretium, TMAC), others get acquired once de-
risking milestone is achieved (e.g. Romarco, Kaminak)• Standalone intermediate producers/developers are rare, occupying a unique sector niche
and valuation
Rainy/Romarco Comparison: Large scale deposits sometimes get acquired after permitting, feasibility & before production
Takeover Pricing Rainy River Romarco Kaminak
Date Acquired 31-May-13 30-Jul-15 12-May-16Acquirer New Gold OceanaGold GoldcorpTakeover Value (C$M) $385 $856 $520MPremium (%) 67% 72% 40%43-101 Reserves (Moz Au) 4.0 2.0 2.2Per Oz Reserves (C$/oz) $77 $293 $218Project Rainy River Haile CoffeeStage at Takeover Post BFS,
Adv. PermittingPost BFS, Permitted
Post BFS, Adv. Permitting
Project NPV5% (US$M)* $656 $329 $438Takeover P/NAV* 0.50x 1.22x 0.84xTakeover Consensus P/Target** 0.65x 0.84x 1.12x
*BFS Study, After-Tax NPV5%, US$1,250 Au**Analyst Consensus Source: Haywood Securities * Haywood Securities compilation of Company reported economic studies after-tax NAV5%
Project Development Stage
Pre-PermitRamp-Up / Commissioning
Re-Rating PotentialMultiple expansion as permitting advances
Post-Permit/Construction
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
0.00x
0.20x
0.40x
0.60x
0.80x
1.00x
1.20x
TMAC Pretium Lundin Gold Continental Victoria Sabina Belo Sun NewCastle Midas Gold
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
)
ADVANCED GOLD DEVELOPERSAmericas
Price to Proj NAV Project NAV5% (US$1,250 Au)*
opportunity
20
$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 PEA to PFS changes: • Decrease in payable metal:
› Inferred resources excluded in PFS› Changes in mineral resource estimation
process excluded some historical data
• 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% royaltyThe 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.
PEANPV5%
PFSNPV5%
60% of reduction
11% of reduction
Potential Upside – Focus on PEA vs. PFSPayable metals & OPEX opportunities
2012 2014
21
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.
* See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding Inferred Mineral Resources** See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding geologic exploration potential
Potential UpsideIn- & next-to-pit reserve additions
Insidethe PFS
Reserve Pits
• Converting some or all of 346k oz Au @ 1.1 g/t Au of inferred mineral resources* to mineral reserves & 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**
Aroundthe PFS Reserve
Pits throughResource
Conversion
• 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
22
Inferred to Indicated – 2-3x modelled grade
Resource De-risking - Replacing historic data
Inferred to Indicated + Resource additions
MGI16-411: 35.2m @ 3.1g/t Au (incl. 18.3m @ 5.0 g/t Au)MGI16-412: 22.9m @ 4.7g/t Au & 0.15% Sb
MGI16-414: 200.3m @ 2.2g/t Au, 3.2g/t Ag & 0.13% Sb(incl. 6.1m @ 3.6 g/t Au & 1.75% Sb)
MGI-17-421: 217m @ 3.2g/t Au, 6.1g/t Ag & 0.3% Sb(incl. 21m @ 5.7g/t Au, 26.7g/t Ag & 1.3% Sb)
MGI-17-423: 193.6m @ 2.5 g/t Au, 6.3g/t Ag & 0.55% Sb(incl. 32.0m @ 3.0 g/t Au, 24 g/t Ag & 3.1% Sb)
MGI16-415: 42.7m @ 3.1g/t Au, 10.7g/t Ag & 0.49% SbMGI16-418: 44.6m @ 2.0g/t Au, 9.4 g/t Ag & 0.59% Sb
Current Drill ProgramHighlights (see news release dated March 30, 2017 for full details)
23
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
itsContained oz of Gold
Stibnite Gold Project
(1) Source: Mineral Economics Group, RBC Capital Markets
Rarity of Global Gold Deposits >5m oz(1)
Potential UpsideResource & Reserves
24
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.
Potential UpsideHigh-grade exploration targets
Exploration potential
around thePFS Pits
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
High gradeunderground
prospects
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
25
Past
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.
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
StibniteRestoring the site
27
Example:Fish passage blocked since
1938
Midas Gold would:
Restore fish passage
Stibnite’s LegacyBrownfields site & restoration opportunity
28
Permitting & Social License
29
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
andStibnite Joint Review Process
Federal Permits and AuthorizationsUSFS:• NEPA EIS - Record of Decision on the Plan
of Restoration and Operations • Road Use & Power Line• Mineral Material• Timber Sale Permit & Contract USACE 404: Wetlands & StreamsEPA: • NPDES - Water discharges• SWPPP - StormwaterUSFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA - Endangered Species ConsultationFCC: Radio CommunicationsBATFE: Explosives Handling MSHA: Mine Identification Number, Legal Identity Report, Ground Control Plan
State PermitsIDEQ:• Air Quality• Cyanidation• 401 Water Quality Certification• Waste Water Treatment• Solid Waste Permits• Point of Compliance• Drinking WaterIDWR:• Water Rights• Stream Channel Alteration• Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)SHPO: Cultural ClearanceIDL: Reclamation Plan Approval
Local Permits• Planning and Zoning -
Conditional Use Permit• Central District Health Septic • County Building Permits• County Road Use Authorization
Final Plan of Restoration and Operations &
Reclamation Plan & Reclamation Bond
The Joint Review Process30
Publish Final ROD
Notice of Availability (NOA) for
Draft EIS In Federal Register
EIS Project Initiation &
Public Scoping
PrepareDraft EIS
Respond to Comments on Draft EIS & Prepare
Final EIS & Draft RODAncillary Permits
RODDependent
PermitsPublic
Objection Period & Objection Resolution
Draft EIS Comment
Period
NOA For Final EIS &
Draft ROD In Federal Register
Pre-work & Planning
Alternatives & Environmental
Analysis
Submittal of PRO
ProjectApproved
Administrative Approval
Engineering & Design
We are here
Sept 2016 Dec 2016 Q2 2017 Q2 2018
Q2-Q4 2018Q1 2019 Q4 2018
The Permitting ProcessNEPA
31
People
32
Don BaileyChair & Director
Peter Nixon Chair & Director
Ex-Goepel, director of Dundee Precious
Metals, ex-director of Miramar Mining
Victor FloresDirector
Stephen Quin Director / CEO
Marcelo KimDirector
Donald Young Director
Partner, Paulson & Co. Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining &
Northern Orion
Partner, Paulson & Co Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome, director of Dundee Precious
Metals
Keith Allred Director
Michael BogertDirector
Attorney, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, former counselor to US Interior Secretary,
former regional admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office
Partner at Cicero Group, 2010 Democratic
candidate for Governor of Idaho
Ken Brunk Director
April WhitneyDirector
Scotty Davenport Director
Shauna ArnoldDirector
Served four terms on McCall City Council, two
as mayor. Resident of McCall, ID
Founding member of Valley County Economic
Development Council, business owner in Valley
County. Resident of McCall, ID
Ex-CEO Midway Gold, ex-Romarco, ex-Newmont,
experienced mine builder & operator
Bob BarnesDirector/COO
COO Midas Gold, Ex-VP Ops Capstone, ex-
Pan American, Goldcorp
Laurel SayerDirector / CEO
Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of natural resource
issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation.
Resident of Boise, ID
Midas GoldCorp. Board
Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. Board
(Idaho operating subsidiary)
Boards of DirectorsProven track record, local interests
Massage Therapist, serves on local boards for organizations focussed on
the arts and education. Resident of Cascade, ID.
Communications Director for Brundage Mountain
Resort. Resident of McCall, ID.
33
Stephen Quin President & CEO
Midas Gold Corp.
Bob Barnes Director & COOMidas Gold Idaho
Darren Morgans CFO
Anne Labelle VP Legal & Sustainability
John Meyer VP Development
Chris Dail Exploration Manager
Rocky Chase VP Environment
& Restoration
Liz MongerIR Manager
& Corp. Secretary
Ex-COO Capstone Mining, ex-CEO Sherwood Copper,
ex-EVP Miramar Mining
Ex-VP Ops Capstone Mining, ex-Pan
American, Goldcorp
Ex-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and PWC
Ex-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper,
Miramar Mining
Ex-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott, Piedmont,
USFS
Ex-Barrick, Hecla, Stibnite district
experience
Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals
Ex-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude
Laurel Sayer President & CEOMidas Gold Idaho
Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of natural resource
issues & policy for Idaho congressional delegation
Kyle FendEnvironmental Superintendent
Mckinsey LyonDirector, Public AffairsFormer Partner Gallatin Public
Affairs, consultant for Monsanto and Agrium on NEPA permitting
Ex-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco, North Wind
Alan HaslamVP PermittingFormer Director of Mining for Agrium, recently led NEPA
permitting of Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho
Experienced ManagementWe’ve done it before!
34
Path Forward
Use of March 2016 Financing ProceedsPermitting & feasibility
~20%• Baseline data
collection• Land title
~20% • Permitting• Regulatory
~30%• Technical studies• Feasibility• Exploration
~10% • Legal• Sustainability
~20% • Corporate• Working capital
C$55m
Multi-year Investment(all percentages are approximate)
Illustrative Timeline
2019
2018
2017
2016
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Regulatory CSR Development
Feasibility Study
Project optimization, drilling, site
characterization
Finalize PRO
Permitting, Joint
Review, EIS
Ongoing community & government
relations
36
Regulatory process underway› Environmental baseline data collected to support an EIS› Project extensively discussed with local communities and stakeholders› Plan of Restoration & Operations for mine development filed, declared complete› NEPA process (EIS) underway
Feasibility study underway› PFS and post-PFS optimization completed› Metallurgical optimization test work› Resource optimization drilling› Feasibility study commenced
Financing provides multi-year certainty› Can complete the process› Management team in place› Support of well-funded strategic investors
Path Forward37
Additional Information
Extensive PFS test program• 7 master composites• 114 variability compositesNet overall Gold Recoveries
Yellow Pine 90%West End 86%Hangar Flats 87%Historic Tailings 75%
Antimony RecoveriesYellow 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
Low
Sb
Sulp
hide
s(~
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
ProcessingRobust gold & antimony recovery
39
Classification Metric Tonnes(000s)
GoldGrade(g/t)
ContainedGold
(000s oz)
SilverGrade(g/t)
ContainedSilver
(000s oz)
Antimony Grade
(%)
ContainedAntimony(000s lbs)
Indicated:Hangar Flats 21,389 1.60 1,103 4.30 2,960 0.11 54,180West End 35,974 1.30 1,501 1.35 1,567 0.008 6,563Yellow Pine 44,559 1.93 2,762 2.89 4,133 0.09 84,777Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648
Total Indicated 104,506 1.63 5,464 2.65 8,904 0.07 155,169Inferred:Hangar Flats 7,451 1.52 363 4.61 1,105 0.11 18,727West End 8,546 1.15 317 0.68 187 0.006 1,083Yellow Pine 9,031 1.31 380 1.50 437 0.03 5,535Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563
Total Inferred 25,168 1.32 1,066 2.15 1,743 0.05 25,908Notes:(1) All Mineral Resources have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”).(2) Mineral Resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability, as required under NI43-101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a Mineral
Resource. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. These Mineral Resource estimates include inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to haveeconomic 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 categoriesthrough further drilling, or into Mineral Reserves, once economic considerations are applied. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore numbers may not appear to add precisely.
(3) Open pit sulfide Mineral Resources are reported at a cutoff grade of 0.75 g/t Au and open pit oxide Mineral Resources are reported at a cutoff grade of 0.45 g/t Au.
Mineral Resources (in metric units, except oz)
40
Deposit TonnageAverage Contained Grade Total Contained Metal
Gold Antimony Silver Gold Antimony Silver
Imperial Units (000s tons) (oz/ton) (%) (oz/ton) (000s oz) (000s lbs) (000s oz)
Yellow Pine 43,985 0.057 0.098 0.090 2,521 86,376 3,973
Hangar Flats 15,430 0.045 0.132 0.086 690 40,757 1,327
West End 35,650 0.035 0.000 0.040 1,265 - 1,410
Historic Tailings 3,001 0.034 0.165 0.084 102 9,903 252
Total Probable Mineral Reserve 98,066 0.047 0.070 0.071 4,579 137,037 6,962
Notes:(1) All Mineral Reserves have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”).(2) Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves: $1350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb.(3) Block MUST be economic based on gold value only in order to be included as ore in Mineral Reserve.(4) Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
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.
Mineral Resources (in imperial units)
41
-$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” atthe end of this presentation.
After Tax Cash Flow (base case)At US$1,350/oz gold
42
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.
PFS vs. PEA – Life-of-Mine Capital CostsLower mining capex more than offsets other changes
43
Contingency
$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 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
PFS vs. PEA – Life-of-Mine Operating CostsHigher unit mining costs and finer grinding are main sources of increased costs
44
• C$55.2 million investment backstopped by Paulson – March 2016
› Current shareholders participated for C$20.7 million
› Paulson took up balance (C$34.5 million)
• 0.05% coupon, senior unsecured convertible debenture
• 7-year term, redeemable after 4 years• Funds the permitting process and feasibility for
the Stibnite Gold Project• Funding certainty for 3+ year period• Adds cornerstone committed gold investor with
strong balance sheet
“We are excited to be investing in one of North America’s largest, highest quality gold development projects. With funding certainty, the team at Midas Gold will be able to continue to advance the Stibnite Gold Project. We look forward to working with Midas Gold to
see this project through the regulatory process, and into site restoration and development.”- Victor Flores, Partner, Paulson & Co.
Strategic investment in Midas Gold45
Regulatory Information
46
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 (available on SEDAR or atwww.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 TechnicalInformation. 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 subjectto 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 mineralresource 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 mineralreserves. 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 economicconsiderations 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 furtherexploration 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 itsinterests 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 anyenvironmental, 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 possibleredevelopment 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 ofresponsibilities are provided in the technical report filed on SEDAR in December 2014. The PFS supersedes and replaces the technical report entitled ‘Preliminary Economic Assessment Technical Report for theGolden 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 areincluded 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 andto 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 becomparable 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.
N O N - I F RS R E P O RT I N G M EA S U R ES
Compliance with NI 43-10147
For more information:Te l : 7 7 8 . 7 2 4 . 4 7 0 0F a x : 6 0 4 . 5 5 8 . 4 7 0 0E - m a i l : i n f o @ m i d a s g o l d c o r p . C o mS u i t e 8 9 0 – 9 9 9 W e s t H a s t i n g s S t r e e tV 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
48
top related