Brent Murdoch20 August 2014

Forward Looking Statements

This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and forward-looking information within the meaning ofCanadian securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical facts that address activities, events or developments that Vista expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future, including future business goals, strategy andplans, competitive strengths, growth of Vista’s business, project development, valuation of Vista relative to other resource companies; Vista’s potential status as a producer including plans and timing, mineral reserve and mineral resourceestimates, future mineral reserve and mineral resource projections, scheduling, mine plans, performance of and results of preliminary feasibility and feasibility studies, the timing and completion of the preliminary feasibility and feasibilitystudies on the Mt. Todd gold project and the evaluation of a larger plant at the Mt. Todd gold project, the development of the Mt. Todd gold project into a world-class deposit and Australia as a favorable mining jurisdiction, the anticipatedgrowth of the mineral resource estimate and the ability to increase the estimated contained gold ounces at the Mt. Todd gold project, ability to process hard ore at the Mt. Todd gold project, expected gold recovery rates at the Mt. Todd goldproject, the modifications necessary to existing infrastructure at the Mt. Todd gold project, potential for favorable implications and timing of gold production from the existing heap leach pad at the Mt. Todd gold project, including the abilityto generate early project revenues from the heap leach pad, timing for permitting, completion of future studies, exploration, testing and completion of an environmental impact statement at the Mt. Todd gold project, risks relating to the future

effectiveness of the water treatment program and risks related to the discharge of water into the Edith River; the potential effects of Major Project Status for allowing project decisions to be made in an efficient and timely manner and

minimizing the potential for delays in obtaining critical decisions; risks related to the exploration and preliminary economic assessment (“PEA”) results at Guadalupe de los Reyes gold/silver project (“GDLR”); potential for high grades ofminerals at GDLR, Vista’s continued exploration at GDLR, conventional processing could result in high recovery of minerals at GDLR, risks related to Invecture Group completing the earn-in rights; the exploration and development successat the Golden Meadows project; the value and upside potential at the Golden Meadows project and the potential value of Vista’s investment in Midas and other such matters are forward-looking statements and forward-looking information.The material factors and assumptions used to develop the forward-looking statements and forward-looking information contained herein include the following: the Corporation’s approved business plans, exploration and assay results, mineralresource and reserve estimates and results of preliminary economic assessments, preliminary feasibility studies and feasibility studies on Vista’s projects, if any. When used in this presentation, the words “estimate,” “plan,” “anticipate,”“expect,” “intend,” “believe,” “will” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results,performance or achievements of Vista to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such statements. Such factors include, among others, uncertainty of preliminary assessmentresults and of feasibility study results and the estimates on which such results are based; risks relating to scheduling for feasibility studies; risks relating to cost increases for capital and operating costs including cost of power; risks relating todelays in commencement and completion of construction at the Mt. Todd gold project; risks of shortages of equipment or supplies; risks of inability to achieve anticipated production volume or manage cost increases; risks relating to the

future effectiveness of the water treatment program and risks related to the discharge of water into the Edith River; risks related to project decision making processes of the NT Government changing or taking longer than expected; risks that

Vista’s acquisition, exploration and property advancement efforts will not be successful; risks relating to fluctuations in the price of gold; the inherently hazardous nature of mining-related activities; uncertainties concerning mineral reserveand mineral resource estimates; potential effects on Vista’s operations of environmental and other government regulations in Canada, the United States and in the countries in which it operates; risks related to the exploration and preliminaryeconomic assessment results at Guadalupe de los Reyes; risks relating to obtaining the CUSF and EIS permits required for the Las Cardones gold project; risks relating to Vista’s receipt of future payments in connection with our disposal ofthe Amayapampa gold project; risks related to the development of the Awak Mas project; risks due to legal proceedings; uncertainty of being able to raise capital on favorable terms or at all; risks relating to repayment of debts; possiblechallenges to title to Vista’s properties; risks from political and economic instability in the countries in which Vista operates; intense competition in the mining industry; recent market events and conditions; and external risks relating to theeconomy and credit markets in general, uncertainty of resource estimates, estimates of results based on such resource estimates; risks relating to completing metallurgical testing; risks relating to cost increases for capital and operating costs;as well as those factors discussed under the headings “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in Vista’s latest Annual Report on Form 10-K (as amended), Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and other documents filedwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian securities regulatory authorities. Although Vista has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements and forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. Except as required by law, Vista assumes no obligation to publicly update any forward-lookingstatements or forward-looking information; whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.Cautionary Note to U.S. investors Concerning Estimates of Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves: The estimates of mineral reserves shown in this presentation have been prepared in accordance with the definition standards on mineralreserves of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum referred to in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”). The definitions of proven and probable reserves used inNI 43-101 differ from the definitions in SEC Industry Guide 7. Under SEC Industry Guide 7 standards, a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study is required to report reserves, the three-year historical average price is used in any reserve orcash flow analysis to designate reserves and the primary environmental analysis or report must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority. Accordingly, Vista’s disclosure in this presentation of mineral reserves may not becomparable to information from U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the SEC.Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured and Indicated Resources: This presentation uses the terms “measured resources,” “indicated resources” and “measured and indicated resources.” We advise U.S. investorsthat while these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, these terms are not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and are normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC.The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant “reserves” as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. The term “contained gold ounces” shownin this presentation is not permitted under the rules of the SEC. U.S. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into SEC Industry Guide 7 reserves.Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Inferred Resources: This presentation uses the term “inferred resources.” We advise U.S. investors that while this term is recognized and required by Canadian regulations, this termis not a defined term under SEC Industry Guide 7 and is normally not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. “Inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and greatuncertainty 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 notform the basis of a feasibility study or prefeasibility study, except in rare cases. The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant “reserves” as in-place tonnage and gradewithout reference to unit measures. The term “contained gold ounces” shown on this presentation is not permitted under the rules of the SEC. U.S. Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of an inferred resource exists or iseconomically or legally minable.Cautionary Note to All Investors Concerning Economic Assessments that Include Inferred Resources: The preliminary assessments on GDLR, Long Valley, and Awak Mas gold projects are preliminary in nature and include “inferred mineralresources” 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 no certainty that the preliminary assessments at GDLR, LongValley and Awak Mas gold projects will ever be realized.

2

Mt Todd Gold Project

• Acquired by Vista Gold and its wholly owned subsidiary Vista Gold Australia in 2006.

• Vista Gold is currently working a decision to bring the world-class Mt. Todd gold project back into production.

• Recent drilling results estimate that the Batman deposit now contains 7.4 million ounces of gold in the Measured and Indicated categories and 1.7 million ounces in the Inferred category, ranking Mt. Todd as the largest undeveloped gold resource in Australia.

Slide 3

Mt Todd Update

• Site purchased in 2006 from NT Government• Agreement in place with NT Government and Jawoyn

Association• Seven years of geologic, metallurgic and technical

evaluation ($70m spent to date)• Sound understanding of legacy of the site and

knowledge to repair the past, respecting the future.• Vista has a modest exploration budget going forward

while market sentiment is for gold investment is depressed

4

Mt Todd Update

• Vista controls 1,100 km2 of highly prospective land that has historically been underexplored

• Defined Resources at Quigley's deposit• Batman deposit is now estimated to contain 7.40 million

ounces in gold in the Measured and Indicated (M&I) categories and 1.73 million ounces in the Inferred category

• A 285% increase from 1.92 million ounces in 2006

5

Mt Todd Water Management

• Water releases are required as Mt Todd collects a net of 1.5GL each year

• The site is almost at capacity so water must be released• Water is treated to precipitate out metals which means

the water can be released at a higher rate without damage to the environment

• We are working with the DME to reduce the water inventory over the coming years

• We have spent $20m to date on Care and Maintenance activities to date

6

Mt Todd Approvals

Current• Waster Discharge licence – is now up for renewal• NOI for 55k tonnes processed per day submitted June

2013• Four year MMP submitted in October 2013

Outstanding• EIS submitted in June 2013 with approval expected

August 2014• Operating MMP• Authorisation under the EPBC Act

7

The Approvals Process

• This talk will cover Mining approvals required to transition from Exploration to Production (which includes closure by default)

• There have been many misconceptions and recent changes in the Northern Territory in how approvals and permitting for development projects are obtained.

• The intention of this brief is to share our experience, which may remove some of the questions

8

Approvals

9

There are four main permits / approvals required

Notice of intent (NT)

EIS (NT) – controls anything going off the mine site and closure

EPBC1 (Federal) – approval for development next to four endangered species near Mt. Todd(Finch, Crested shrike-tit (northern), Mertons Water monitor and the Bustard), as a “controlledaction”

MMP (NT) – Mine Management Plan controls operating the mine / site

There is a large number of other approvals but they are minor and perfunctory (i.e.storage of dangerous goods license)

All impacts have been analyzed and the EIS was submitted to the NT EPA in June, publiccomments have been received.

1. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Act, which commenced 16 July 2000

The Northern Territory Mineral Titles Act 2010 (and the Mineral Titles Regulations) are the laws under which exploration and mining approvals are granted or refused.

The Northern Territory Mining Management Act is the law that controls how mines are managed and what obligations there are for mining companies to protect the environment once an exploration or mining approval has been granted.

The Commonwealth Government EPBC Act (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) The laws if your actions that have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance

The Legislation

10

Summary of the Process

The “Mine Operator” submits either a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) or a “Mine Management Plan” (MMP) to the Department of Mines and Energy (DME)

11

MMP – Recent Changes

The MMP is a document with a future facing perspective and content covering a plan of operations or action proposed over a period of 4 years.

It is not a document in which historical performance is tracked or reported. Any changes that have occurred under the previous 4 year period will be reflected in the new plan of action.

The Environmental Performance Report (EPR)– is a document which looks retrospectively at a 12 month period to assess performance against the plans described in the MMP.

12

Summary of the Process

The DME makes an initial assessment based on the NOI or MMP to determine if there is potential for “significant environmental harm”

13

Summary of the Process

Dependant on the Potential for “Significant Harm” to the environment one of the three options are elected

14

Summary of the Process

The EPA parameters for assessment are unknown

Is this an objective or subjective process?

15

16

Approvals for a Mine - DME

17

Approvals for a mine - EPA

18

Environmental Impact Statement

19

Public Environmental Report

20

EIS Guideline

• The EPA has a 6 page guideline for an EIS on the web.

• The actual process is the EPA develops a specific guideline for the project.

21

22

23

24

Commonwealth Approvals

• EPBC Act (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) can add requirements

• “…actions that have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance require approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment (the Minister). The Minister will decide whether assessment and approval is required under the Act.”

25

Commonwealth Approvals, cont.

Significant impact• A significant impact is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

26

Mt Todd

• To date all of the identified species on the threatened list have been deemed to suffer a “Significant Impact” as a result of the proposed mining activities.

• Even after the EIS included peer reviewed reports from experts stating the impacts were not considered to be significant.

• The Commonwealth are still withholding their approval(s) today.

27

NT Currently

• DME is referring all NOI’s and MMP’s to the EPA for assessment

• The EPA seemed to be assessing all mining approvals as requiring an EIS

• The Commonwealth are using provisions of the EPBC Act to require an additional approval by classing anything as significant

• The NT EPA are looking to the proponents under provision 14A to seek new approvals if there is any change(s) to the project, regardless of the significance  

28

• The intent of the various Act’s and Reg’s is to have activities that have the POTENTIAL for SIGNIFICANT HARM to the environment to undergo additional analysis.

• Currently is seems that these provisions are being abused as all mining approvals are being referred to the NT EPA by the DME and then assessed as requiring an EIS 

• The NT EPA are referring all EIS’s to the Commonwealth who have deemed that the entire NT is covered by the EPBC Act as it “may have” Northern Quolls 

29

Where to from Here ‐ Approvals?

• Submit and have our Operating MMP approved by the DME

• Satisfy the Commonwealth Environment Department that the project will not have a significant impact on the threatened species they have nominated

30

Where to from Here ‐ Project

• Continue to undertake the Care and Maintenance activities at Mt Todd

• Assist the NT Government with water rehabilitation

• Continue to investigate ways to optimise the project economics

• Look forward to an improved Gold price

31

MT Todd’s EIS Timeline

32

Social License

Open dialogue• Key stakeholder and

community meetings• Trusted source of

information• Feedback channels

Community Endorsement• Project support• Welcomed contributor to

local prosperity33

Community Engagement

www.mttodd.com.au• Regular updates• Reporting on key indicators for

water treatment and discharge• Vital communication link during

water discharge• WDL documents• Contact mechanism – majority of

enquiries regarding employment opportunities

• Links to key documents and technical reports through www.vistagold.com

Questions?

www.mttodd.com.au35

Mt Todd Inventory

• Vista growing higher-quality Measured & Indicated category ounces

• Cutoff grade maintained at 0.4 g/t – not growing ounces by lowering cutoff grade

Slide 36

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1.50 1.50 1.53 2.22 2.22 2.61 2.09 1.73

1.76 1.762.90

5.13

3.10 1.87 2.901.73

2.03 4.114.11

5.90

Million oz

Mt. Todd Project ‐ Batman and Heap Leach  Resources & Reserves

Proven & Probable Reserves M & I Resources Inferred Resources

5.13

5.997.01 7.63

Mt. Todd Reserves and Resources

37Note: Measured & Indicated Resources include Proven and Probable Reserves.   Batman and Quigleys resources are quoted at a 0.40g Au/t cut‐off grade.  Heap Leach resources are the average grade of the heap, no cut‐off applied.  Economic analysis conducted only on proven and probable reserves.  Thomas Dyer of Mine Development Associates is the Qualified Person responsible for developing reserves for the Batman deposit.  Deepak Malhotra of Resource Development Inc. is the Qualified Person responsible for developing reserves for the heap leach.

Mt. Todd Gold Project Reserves, Base Case (50,000tpd) 0.40 g Au/t cut‐off. Reserves calculated at $1,360 per ounce gold

Batman Deposit Heap Leach Deposit Quigleys Deposit Total

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes(000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Proven 72,495 0.88 2,057 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72,495 0.88 2,057

Probable 136,955 0.82 3,612 13,354 0.54 232 ‐ ‐ ‐ 150,309 0.80 3,844

Proven & Probable 209,451 0.84 5,669 13,354 0.54 232 ‐ ‐ ‐ 222,805 0.82 5,901

Mt. Todd Gold Project Resources, Base Case (50.000 tpd)

Batman Deposit Heap Leach Deposit Quigleys Deposit Mt. Todd Gold Project Total

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes (000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes(000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Tonnes(000s)

Grade (g/t)

Contained Ounces

Measured 77,793 0.88 2,193 ‐ ‐ ‐ 571 0.98 18 78,364 0.88 2,211

Indicated 201,792 0.80 5,209 13,354 0.54 232 6,868 0.82 181 222,014 0.79 5,622

Measured & Indicated 279,585 0.82 7,401 13,354 0.54 232 7,439 0.83 199 300,378 0.81 7,832

Inferred 72,458 0.74 1,729 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,767 0.85 320 84,225 0.76 2,049

Mt. Todd Mining Plan

Slide 38

Vista’s Technical EvaluationThree issues jointly caused Mt Todd to fail in the past – all manageable

• Hard ore – Pegasus did not achieve designed throughput rates

• Mineralogy & Metallurgy – Pegasus did not achieve designed recovery rates

• Low gold prices – gold approached $300/oz as mill was commissioned

Hard Ore

• Mt Todd bond work index is 26

• Pegasus comminution circuit was designed for BWi of 17 – equipment not capable of efficiently processing harder ore

• Result: Pegasus never reached design throughput levels

Mineralogy & Metallurgy

• Flotation circuit failed because of lack of cyanide detoxification circuit

• With all ore going to CIL circuit, secondary copper minerals (bornite & chalcocite) consumed cyanide

• Result: Pegasus never reached design recovery levelsSlide 39

Mt Todd Process Flowsheet

Slide 40

Mt. Todd Processing

Plant Video

Mine Closure – Map of Footprint

Mt Todd – Prefeasibility Study

50,000 tpd mill operation(Base Case)

33,000 tpd mill operation(Alternate Case)

Open Pit Reserve 5.90 m ozs(222.8 million tonnes @ 0.82 g/t gold)

3.56 m ozs(123.7 million tonnes @ 0.90 g/t gold)

Cut‐off grade and reserve price 0.40 g Au/t, $1,360/oz Au pit design 0.45 g Au/t, $925/oz Au pit design

Mine Life 13 years 11 years

Production (Life of mine) 4.81 m ozs 2.89 m ozs

Recoveries 81.5% 81.2%

Average Annual Production(1st 5 years)

370 k ozs481 k ozs

263 k ozs295k ozs

Cash Cost(1st 5 years)

$773/oz$662/oz

$684/oz$676/oz

“All‐in” cash costs (LOM)1 $1,066/oz $1,020/oz

Initial CapEx $1,046m $761m

Sustaining CapEx $359m $211m

Pre‐Tax NPV5%2 $1,094m $777m

Pre‐Tax IRR2 21.8% 22.1%

After‐Tax NPV5%2 $591m $440m

After‐Tax IRR2 15.9% 16.9% Slide 43

Item PFS level analysis FS level analysis Mt. Todd level

Geologic Assessment Basic assessment and Review Detailed assessment of structures and rock contacts, alteration, mineralization, and deposit trends 100% FS

Mineralogical Sampling & Analysis Preliminary mineralogical sampling and analysis, and mineralogical study complete

Detailed mineralogical sampling and mapping, and detailed mineralogical study complete 100% FS

Reserves – Calculation Parameters Known or Estimated Detailed analysis and determinations 100% FS

Pit Design / Slopes Preliminary estimation by rock type, preliminary haul road incorporated

Detailed pit designs with phases and access for equipment operation 100% FS

Production Schedule Yearly and LOM ore and waste tonnages and grades Detailed annual schedules showing ore tonnages, product quality, and waste tonnages and grades 95% FS

Ore Sampling and Test WorkSampling of core, preliminary bench‐scale testing to determine recoveries, ore characterization, and 

processing parameters for flowsheet development

Sampling of core for different ore body zones, flowsheet confirmed, comprehensive beneficiation test 

program to determine recoveries; or and product characterizations, finalization of process parameters

100% FS

Flow SheetsEstablishment of probable flowsheet from test work 

data; major process flow diagrams; initial determinations of material and heat balances

Detailed flowsheet based on comprehensive beneficiation test program; detailed equipment list; diagrams for all process flows; material and heat 

balances finalized

100% FS

Process Design General design basis; preliminary engineering drawings;tradeoff studies optional

Complete design basis; basic engineering drawings complete; tradeoff studies performed 70% FS

Power Power sources and requirements identified; unit costsobtained from supplier

Power requirements and unit costs derived from detailed engineering study; unit costs from quotes 100% FS

Water Sources / Uses Preliminary study, volumes and unit costs estimated Specific source identified, volumes from detailed engineering study, costs from quotes 100% FS

Capital Cost Estimate Preliminary equipment list, budget or historical price quotes, some factoring

Detailed equipment list, firm price quotes for all major equipment, all capital items identified 85% FS

Operating Cost EstimateQuantified estimates for labor, power, and 

consumables; budget or historical price quotes for unit prices, some factoring

Detailed engineering estimate by project area, based on quotes and studies 90% FS

Prefeasibility Study

Mt Todd – Prefeasibility Study

Slide 45

Operating Cost – Base Case (50,000tpd) First 5 Years Cost Life of Mine Cost

Per tonneprocessed

Per Ounce produced

Per tonneprocessed

Per Ounce produced

Mining $8.18 $302.03 $6.95 $321.88

Processing $8.71 $321.47 $8.78 $406.86

Site General and Administrative $0.49 $18.27 $0.50 $22.94

Jawoyn Royalty $0.39 $14.50 $0.31 $14.50

Water Treatment $0.07 $2.60 $0.07 $3.39

Refining Costs $0.09 $3.19 $0.07 $3.19

Power Credit ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total Cash Costs $17.93 $662.06 $16.68 $772.76

Economic sensitivity to Au and AUD

46

Mt. Todd Gold ProjectNPV (5%), in MillionsSensitivity Table

$1,300/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,450/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,600/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,800/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

AUD$1.10 : USD$1.00 $155.9 / 7.8% $448.4 / 13.3% $734.5 / 18.7% $1,114.1 / 25.5%

AUD$1.00 : USD$1.00 $304.5 / 10.5% $591.3 / 15.9% $876.6 / 21.1% $1,255.1 / 27.7%

AUD$0.90 : USD$1.00 $448.3 / 13.1% $733.6 / 18.4% $1,017.2 / 23.4% $1,395.9 / 29.9%

AUD$0.80 : USD$1.00 $591.0 / 15.7% $874.4 / 20.7% $1,157.9 / 25.6% $1,536.1 / 31.9%

Base Case (50,000 tpd scenario)

Alternate Case (33,000 tpd scenario)

Note: Sensitivity to Australian Dollar exchange rate applied only to operating costs.  All capital costs (initial and sustaining) remain expressed in US Dollars based on a AUD$1.00 : USD$1.00 exchange rate over the life of the mine

Mt. Todd Gold ProjectNPV (5%), in MillionsSensitivity Table

$1,300/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,450/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,600/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

$1,800/oz AuNPV / IRR(after‐tax)

AUD$1.10 : USD$1.00 $187.2 / 10.1% $363.2 / 14.9% $538.2 / 19.5% $773.2 / 25.5%

AUD$1.00 : USD$1.00 $265.6 / 12.2% $440.2 / 16.9% $615.6 / 21.4% $850.9 / 27.4%

AUD$0.90 : USD$1.00 $342.4 / 14.2% $517.1 / 18.8% $693.2 / 23.3% $928.6 / 29.2%

AUD$0.80 : USD$1.00 $419.3 / 16.2% $594.6 / 20.7% $770.9 / 25.2% $1,006.3 / 30.9%

Reclamation and closure – waste rock dump

47

Reclamation and closure – waste rock dump

48

Adding Limestone to Batman Pit

RP3 Pumping Infrastructure