3 STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT IDAHO, USA

Transcription

3 STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT IDAHO, USA
1
3
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
I DA H O , U S A
MAX.TSX
MDRPF.OTCQX
MAY 2016
F O R WA R D L O O K I N G S TAT 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; 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 identify important 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 factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as
anticipated, estimated or intended, including, without limitation, the risks and uncertainties related to the Offerings not being completed in the event that the conditions precedent thereto are not satisfied;
uncertainties related to raising sufficient financing in a timely manner and on acceptable terms. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, Midas Gold has applied several material
assumptions, including the assumptions that (1) the conditions precedent to completion of the Offerings will be fulfilled so as to permit the Offerings to be completed in or about April of 2016; (2) all
necessary approvals and consents, including shareholder approval, in respect of the Offerings will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; and (3) general business and economic conditions
will not change in a materially adverse manner. 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, 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 or to 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 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.
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
WORLD CLASS GOLD PROJECT (1, 2)
• Low geopolitical risk Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction
• Brownfields site Restoration of extensive prior disturbance
• Positive Pre-Feasibility Study $832 million NPV at $1,350 gold,
19.3%IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate)
• Multi-million ounce deposit 8th largest gold reserve in USA
• Size 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life
• Superior grade 1.63g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit in USA
• Scale 388,000 oz gold/year for first 4 years; 337,000 oz 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
3
ROBUST 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 connections
• Well Funded ~C$60 million
+ sustaining capital)
• Strong after-tax cash flow $294 million/year (Years 1-4); $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
(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
4
WHY MIDAS GOLD?
ABOUT MIDAS GOLD
5
• IPO in 2011 with sole focus on advancing the Stibnite Gold Project, Idaho, USA
• ~US$137m spent on the project since 2009
•
•
•
•
~99,450m of drilling by Midas Gold
~136,400m of drilling pre-Midas Gold
PFS completed
3+ years of environmental baseline data collected
• 175 million shares issued
• Major shareholders include:
• EuroPac
• Franklin
• Gabelli
•
•
•
•
• Goodman
• M&G
• Sun Valley
Shareholders
Teck Resources
& Vista
21%
41%
12%
• Teck Corp.
• Vista Gold
3%
23%
Franco Nevada purchase a 1.7% NSR in 2013
Teck purchased 9.9% in 2013
Paulson backstopped C$55 million financing in March 2016
Experienced management team and strong boards with local connections
Institutional
High net worth
individuals
Directors &
Management
Retail & Other
6
PAULSON & CO
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT
PAULSON - STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN MIDAS GOLD
• 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. Following shareholder approval, 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.
7
USE OF PROCEEDS - PERMITTING & FEASIBILITY
Multi-year Investment
(all percentages are approximate)
~20%
Illustrative Timeline
•Baseline data
collection
•Land title
Regulatory
Q1
~20%
C$55m
~30%
~10%
Continued Cost Reductions:
• G&A and other cost reductions
• Focus on efficiencies
• Streamlined cost centres
US$ Millions
~20%
•Permitting
•Regulatory
Development
Finalize
PoO
Q2
Project
optimization,
drilling, site
characterization
2016
Q3
Q4
•Technical
studies
•Feasibility
•Exploration
Q1
Q2
2017
Q3
•Legal
•Sustainability
Permitting,
Joint
Review, EIS
Q4
Feasibility
Study
Q1
•Corporate
•Working
capital
Q2
2018
Q3
4.0
200
3.0
150
2.0
100
1.0
50
0.0
2011 2012
G&A (US$)
CSR
2013
2014 2015
Employment
Q4
Q1
Q2
2019
Q3
Q4
8
Ongoing
community &
government
relations
P R O F O R M A N AV I M PA C T
9
NAV Impact (US$)
US$1,200/oz Au(1)
US$1,350/oz Au(2)
PostFinancing
Project NPV5%
$513M
$513M
$513M
$832M
$832M
$1,129M
$1,129M
Cash on Hand
$4.5M
$44.0M
$44.0M
$4.5M
$44.0M
$4.5M
$44.0M
Net Asset
Value
$518M
$557M
$557M
$837M
$876M
$1,134M
$1,173M
NAVPS(4)
$3.22
$1.76
$1.76
$5.20
$2.77
$7.05
$3.70
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
0.36x
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
US$1,200/oz Au US$1,350/oz Au US$1,500/oz Au
Net Asset Value
NAVPS
0.05x
0.23x
PostFinancing
0.04x
0.17x
(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
Assumes debentures converted to common
shares
(4)
(5) CAD/USD of
(6) Share
1.38
price of $0.64
$3,500
Substantial NPV
& Leverage To
Gold Price
Project NPV (US$ millions)
0.15x
Net Asset Value (US$ Millions)
Post-Financing NAVPS
0.08x
Post- Pre-Financing
Financing
PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag,
$4.00/lb Sb, after-tax
(1)
Pre-Financing
Price to NAV(5)(6)
May 6, 2016 Pre-Financing
US$1,500/oz Au(3)
$3,000
$2,500
5% After-Tax
$2,000
0% After-Tax
$1,500
0% Pre Tax
$1,000
$500
$0
Enterprise Value
~US $77m
$1,200
$1,350
$1,500
Gold Price ($/oz)
$1,650
Source: Midas Gold December 2014 PFS
VA L U E O P P O R T U N I T Y
10
• Development costs lower through a down-cycle
• Construction readiness for a medium-term improvement to gold price
• Fully permitted projects traditionally attract higher valuation multiples
ADVANCED GOLD DEVELOPERS – NORTH AMERICA
Takeover Precedents
Date Acquired
Acquirer
Takeover Value (C$M)
Premium (%)
43-101 Reserves (Moz Au)
Per Oz Reserves (C$/oz)
Project
Stage at Takeover
Project NPV5% (US$M)*
Takeover P/NAV*
Takeover Consensus
P/Target**
Rainy River
Romarco
31-May-13
New Gold
$385
67%
4.0
$77
Rainy River
Post BFS,
Adv. Permitting
$656
0.50x
30-Jul-15
OceanaGold
$856
72%
2.0
$293
Haile
Post BFS,
Permitted
$329
1.22x
0.65x
0.84x
*BFS Study, After-Tax NPV5%, US$1,250 Au
**Analyst Consensus
Price
PricetotoProj
NAVNAV
Project NAV5% (US$1,250 Au)*
1.00x
0.80x
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
0.60x
$1,000
0.40x
$500
0.20x
0.00x
$0
TMAC
Pretium
Kaminak
Sabina
Post-Permit/Construction
Almaden
Pre-Permit
Project Development Timeframe
* Haywood Securities compilation of Company reported economic studies after-tax NAV5%
MAX PostTransaction
Economic Study Project NAV5% US$1,250/oz Au (US$M)
Rainy/Romarco Comparison: Large scale deposits
often get acquired after permitting, feasibility
Price to NAV (US$1,250/oz Au)
1.20x
11
WHY IDAHO?
I DA H O : T H E R I G H T P L A C E
12
Lucky Friday Mine
Hecla Mining Company
Silver-Lead-Zinc
Coeur d’Alene
Sunshine Mine
Sunshine Silver Mines
Silver
Stibnite Gold Project




A mining friendly State
Well defined permitting process
Strong community support
Low geopolitical risk
Low geopolitical risk in a high risk world
Midas Gold Au-Sb
McCall
Cascade
Idaho Cobalt Project
Formation Metals
Copper-Cobalt
Thompson Creek Mine
Thompson Creek Mining
Molybdenum
BOISE
IDAHO
(1) Fraser Institute Survey
Stibnite Gold Project
©Maplecroft
Phosphate District
Agrium, Monsanto,
Simplot, Stonegate
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.
S T I B N I T E , I D A H O : A R I C H H I S TO R Y O F M I N I N G
13
STIBNITE’S LEGACY
BROWNFIELDS SITE & RESTORATION OPPORTUNITY
14
Example:
Fish Passage blocked since 1938
Midas Gold would:
Restore fish passage
15
WHY THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT?
THE STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
16
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
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.
WORLD CLASS MINERAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES*
(September 10, 2014 / December 15, 2014; “M” = millions)
17
Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz
included in INDICATED 5.5Moz and INFERRED 1.1 Moz RESOURCE
Yellow Pine
0.4 Moz
1.31 g/t Au
2.8 Moz
1.93 g/t Au
0.4 Moz
1.52 g/t Au
Probable
Reserves:
2.5 Moz
1.97 g/t Au
1.1 Moz
1.60 g/t Au
Indicated
Indicated
West End
Hangar Flats
Inferred
Probable
Reserves:
0.7 Moz
1.53 g/t
Au
Inferred
0.3 Moz
1.15 g/t Au
1.5 Moz
1.30 g/t Au
Indicated
Plus reserves of 102,000 oz at a grade of 1.17 g/t gold in historic tailings
* 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:
1.3 Moz
1.22 g/t Au
Inferred
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 DY (PFS) *
December 2014 (at $1350 gold)
18
Antimony Production (millions lbs)
Gold Production (000s oz)
Average Annual Production
Years 1-4
388
LOM
337
4,040
= $242/oz produced
Initial
Years 1-4
1,551
Capital Costs (US$ millions)
LOM
$970 $1,125
Average Annual Production
Total Production
IRR
22.0%
pre-tax
LOM
NPV5% (US$)
$1,093
M
14.0
56.0
99.9
8.3
Cash Costs vs. Gold Price (US$/oz) (2)
Years 1-4
pre-tax
19.3%
$832M
after-tax
after-tax
In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands,
all amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine
Total Production
LOM
Cash Costs
$1,350
$483 $568
AISC
$506
AISC
$616
* 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.
ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTS IN THE USA
-
Largest US
Gold Mines
500
Newmont Nevada
Barric
BarrickCortez
Cortez
2012 Production
Barrick Goldstrike
Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)*
000s oz Gold
Round Mountain
Fort Knox
Stibnite Gold (Life-of-mine)*
Pogo
Cripple Creek
Leeville
Bingham Canyon
Turquoise Ridge
Largest US
Gold
Resources
(Measured +
Indicated)
000s oz Gold
Donlin Gold
Hycroft
Newmont Nevada
Turquoise Ridge JV
Barrick Cortez
Livengood
Barrick Goldstrike
Cripple Creek & Victor
Goldrush
Carlin Underground
Converse
Bald Mountain
Stibnite Gold*
Mesquite
Twin Creeks
Spring Valley
Fort Knox
Sleeper
1,000
1,500
2,000
4th largest years 1-4
Largest US
Gold Mine
Reserves
000s oz Gold
6th largest LOM
* Stibnite Gold PFS, December 2014
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
Highest
Grade US
Open Pit
Gold Mines
g/t
13th largest
Source: USGS data for 2012 excluding mines/projects that are primarily copper or silver
0
10,000
Newmont Nevada
Barrick Cortez
Barrick Goldstrike
Hycroft
Turquoise Ridge JV
Pogo
Cripple Creek and Victor
Stibnite Gold*
Marigold
Fort Knox
Bald Mountain
Mesquite
Round Mountain
Jerritt Canyon
Kensington
0.00
20,000
30,000
19
8th largest
0.50
1.00
Mineral Ridge
Cortez
Golden Sunlight
Stibnite Gold*
Ruby Hill
Nevada Operations
Wharf
Cripple Creek and Victor
Buckskin Rawhide
Borealis
Briggs
Round Mountain
Bald Mountain
Mesquite
Florida Canyon
Marigold
Fort Knox
Hycroft
* Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study
1.50
2.00
2.50
4th highest grade
C R E AT I N G VA L U E T H R O U G H B U I L D I N G P R O J E C T S
20%
15%
Continental
Higher Return
After -tax IRR Incl. purchase price
25%
- pre production asset
- producing asset
True Gold (Endeavor)
Sabina
Midas
Dalradian
Otjikoto (B2Gold)
Roxgold
10%
Fekola (B2Gold)
Bald/Round Mtn
(Kinross)
Lake Shore (Tahoe)
Natougou (Semafo)
5%
Claude (Silver Standard)
0%
50
100
150
Asanko
Build: 12%
Pretium
Guyana
Oceana (Haile)
Rainy River (New Gold)
Cripple Creek
(Newmont)
200
250
300
Estimated annual gold production
Source: RBC Research Report (March 2016): ThomsonOne, Company Reports, RBC Capital Markets estimates
Buy: 6%
Torex
Higher Production
350
400
450
20
SUPERIOR RESERVE GRADE…
…VS. MAJOR GOLD PRODUCER RESERVES
2.20
21
Yellow Pine*
g/t Gold
1.70
Hangar Flats*
West End*
1.20
0.70
0.20
Barrick
Newmont
Goldcorp
2008
2009
Kinross
2010
* 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
2011
Eldorado
2012
2013
IAMGOLD
2014
2015
Yamana
New Gold
DEVELOPER EXPECTED MARGIN CURVE
BASED ON ~US$1200/oz
22
AISC
Dev. Capex/oz
Margin %
1000
60%
900
Overall Costs ($/oz)
700
40%
600
500
30%
400
20%
300
200
10%
100
0
0%
Rubicon Midway Aureus Lydian Asanko
Source: Macquarie Capital Markets
True
Gold
Guyana
Torex
Midas Golden Roxgold Romarco Pretium
Queen
Expected Margin
50%
800
S T R AT E G I C BY - 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 LY T U N G S T E N
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
Antimony Uses (USGS)
Other uses
20%
Batteries
& alloys
20%
Antimony (US$/lb)
Potential for new U.S. legislation aimed at
developing U.S. production of critical minerals
Flame
Retardants
60%
World Antimony Production 2014
(USGS)
Other
Countries
S. Africa 3%
2%
Russia
4%
USA
1%
Tajikistan
3%
China
78%
Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
23
Bolivia
3%
Burma
6%
24
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
PFS OPPORTUNITIES
P R I N C I PA 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
• Optimizing scheduling,
sequencing and
stockpiling
• In pit resource to
reserve conversion
• Optimize pit slopes to
reduce stripping
PROCESSING
• Optimize grind
size/recovery
• Secondary processing
of antimony
concentrates
CAPITAL
• Third party funding of
offsite infrastructure
• Reduced construction
schedule
25
INCREASE RESERVES
AT GOOD GRADES
• In pits
• Beside pits
• In new, higher grade,
underground deposits
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.
RESOURCE & RESERVE POTENTIAL
26
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
Rarity of Global Gold Deposits >5m oz(1)
# of Deposits
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
Stibnite Gold Project
1,000
500
< 1M oz
1-2M oz
2-5M oz
5-10M oz 10-30M oz >30M oz
Contained oz of Gold
(1) Source:
Mineral
Economics
Group, RBC
Capital
Markets
IN- & NEXT-TO-PIT RESERVE ADDITION POTENTIAL
INSIDE THE PFS RESERVE PITS
• 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**
* See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding Inferred Mineral Resources
** See slide 51 for disclaimer regarding geologic exploration potential
AROUND THE PFS RESERVE PITS
THROUGH RESOURCE 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
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.
27
H I G H G R A D E E X P L O R AT I O N TA R G E T S
EXPLORATION POTENTIAL
AROUND THE PFS 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 GRADE UNDERGROUND
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
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.
28
29
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
SUSTAINABILITY
R E S TO R AT I O N O P P O R T U N I T Y
Actively explored & mined (gold, antimony, tungsten) for ~100 years
• Several open pits, haul roads, tailings, waste dumps, mill site, smelter site,
town sites, hydro dam, heap leach pads, spent heap leach ore stockpiles, etc.
contributing to sediment run-off and degraded water quality
• Extensive forest fire damage contributing to erosion and sediment run-off
• Fish passage cut off since 1938
PFS integrates remediation & reclamation of legacy impacts, and
mostly completed early in mine life
• Reprocess historic tailings, re-use waste rock and spent heap leach ore
• Remediate failed hydro dam, mill site, smelter site, etc.
• Restore fish passage during construction and permanent channel later in mine
life
• Develop wetlands, restore historically impacted waterways, enhance fish
habitat
It is our goal to protect the environment, repair legacy impacts,
and restore the site to a naturally sustainable ecosystem.
30
T H I N K I N G S U S TA I N A B LY
DO WHAT IS RIGHT
Environmental Excellence Award
June 2015
Be a good citizen:
• Hire locally
• Use local suppliers & contractors
• Participate in and support local
activities
• Openness & engagement
Do more than is required:
Funding for a new
baseball park in
McCall, ID
• Voluntary environmental
remediation
• High environmental & safety
standards
Engage, inform, consult and
consider stakeholders’ input
Deliver economic benefits
31
32
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
MOVING FORWARD
M O V I N G F O R WA R D
Ready to enter regulatory process
PFS completed
Post-PFS optimization completed
Environmental baseline data collected to support an EIS
Draft of Plan of Operations for mine development completed
Project extensively discussed with local communities and stakeholders
Management team in place
Financing provides multi-year certainty
Can complete the process
Support of a well-funded strategic investor
33
THE EIS & PERMITTING PROCESS (MAJOR PERMITS)
National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
And
Idaho Joint Review Process
Local Permits
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
Final Plan of Operations &
Reclamation Plan
&
Reclamation Bond
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comprehensive Plan
Zoning
Local Health District
Building Permits
Road Use Authorization
Conditional Use Permit
34
THE PERMITTING PROCESS – MINE PLAN REVIEW
The US Forest Service generally follows a five-step process for reviewing mine plans:
Reviewing the
completeness of the
proposed plan
Authorizing
Mine
Operations
Approving of
the mine plan
Conducting an analysis under
NEPA of potential impacts to
the environment, human
health, and cultural and
historical resources
Establishing a
reclamation
bond
35
36
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
B O A R D S O F D I R E C TO R S :
PROVEN TRACK RECORD, LOCAL INTERESTS
37
Midas Gold
Corp. Board
Peter Nixon
Keith Allred
Victor Flores
Ex-Goepel, director
of Dundee Precious
Metals, ex-Miramar
Partner at Cicero
Group, 2010
Democratic candidate
for Governor of Idaho
Partner, Paulson &
Co.
Chair & Director
Director
Director
Marcelo Kim
Director
Partner, Paulson &
Co
Stephen Quin
Director / CEO
Laurel Sayer
Director
Donald Young
Director
Executive Director of Idaho Ex-KPMG, Placer
Ex-Capstone,
Sherwood, Miramar Coalition of Land Trusts, ex- Dome, director of
& Northern Orion director of natural resource Dundee Precious
issues & policy for Idaho
Metals
congressional delegation
Midas Gold
Idaho, Inc. Board
(Idaho operating
subsidiary)
Chair & Director
Don Bailey
President & Director
Bob Barnes
Ken Brunk
Scotty Davenport
Frank Eld
Ronn Julian
Served four terms on
McCall City Council, two
as mayor, resident of
McCall, ID
COO Midas Gold, ExVP Ops Capstone,
ex-Pan American,
Goldcorp
Ex-CEO Midway Gold,
ex-Romarco, exNewmont, experienced
mine builder & operator
Founding member of Valley
County Economic
Development Council,
business owner in Valley
County, resident of McCall, ID
Former Valley County
Commissioner (two
terms), resident of
Rosebury, ID
Three decades with the
US Forest Service,
resident of Cascade, ID
Director
Director
Director
Director
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!
38
Stephen Quin
Bob Barnes
Darren Morgans
Anne Labelle
VP Legal &
Sustainability
VP
Development
Ex-COO Capstone,
ex-CEO Sherwood
Copper, Miramar
Mining
Ex-VP Ops
Capstone, exPan American,
Goldcorp
Ex-Terrane, Placer
Dome, MIM and
PWC
Ex-Capstone,
Sherwood,
Miramar
Ex-Kinross, Aurelian,
Barrick, Syncrude
President & CEO
COO
CFO
John Meyer
VP Environment
& Permitting
Exploration
Manager
Field Operations
Manager
Richard Moses
Rick Richins
Ex-Barrick, Hecla,
Stibnite district
experience
Ex-Cominco,
Asarco,
Kennecott,
Piedmont,
USFS
Ex-Livengood,
Pebble, Donlin
Creek, Bakyrchik
Ex-Coeur, several
EIS permitting US
mines
Rocky Chase
Chris Dail
Regulatory
Consultant
Liz Caridi
IR Manager
Ex-Rainy River
and Rubicon
Minerals
G O L D M A R K E T C YC L E S
39
MINERAL RESOURCES
Classification
Metric Tonnes
(000s)
Gold
Grade
(g/t)
(in metric units, except oz)
Contained
Gold
(000s oz)
40
Silver
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Silver
(000s oz)
Antimony
Grade
(%)
Contained
Antimony
(000s lbs)
Indicated:
Hangar Flats
West End
Yellow Pine
Historic Tailings
21,389
35,974
44,559
2,583
1.60
1.30
1.93
1.19
1,103
1,501
2,762
99
4.30
1.35
2.89
2.95
2,960
1,567
4,133
245
0.11
0.008
0.09
0.17
54,180
6,563
84,777
9,648
Total Indicated
104,506
1.63
5,464
2.65
8,904
0.07
155,169
Inferred:
Hangar Flats
West End
Yellow Pine
Historic Tailings
7,451
8,546
9,031
140
1.52
1.15
1.31
1.23
363
317
380
6
4.61
0.68
1.50
2.88
1,105
187
437
13
0.11
0.006
0.03
0.18
18,727
1,083
5,535
563
25,168
1.32
1,066
2.15
1,743
0.05
25,908
Total Inferred
Notes:
(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 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. 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 RESERVES
41
Deposit
Tonnage
Imperial Units
(000s tons)
Average Contained Grade
Total Contained Metal
Gold
Antimony
Silver
Gold
Antimony
Silver
(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
3,001
0.034
0.165
0.084
102
9,903
252
0.047
0.070
0.071
4,579
137,037
6,962
Historic Tailings
Total Probable Mineral Reserve
98,066
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.
PROCESSING:
ROBUST GOLD & ANTIMONY RECOVERY
42
Simplified Flow Sheet
Ball Mill
SAG Mill
Antimony
Concentrate
Extensive PFS test program
Gold
Flotation
• 7 master composites
• 114 variability composites
Net overall Gold Recoveries
Yellow Pine
West End
Hangar Flats
Historic Tailings
90%
86%
87%
75%
Yellow Pine
Hangar Flats
87%
82%
Tailings
Oxides
(~14%)
High Sb Sulphides
(~14%)
Antimony
Flotation
Low Sb Sulphides
(~72%)
Jaw Crusher
Pressure
Oxidation
Antimony Recoveries
Gold Doré
Gold Leach
& Recovery
Tailings
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.
$600
$1,600
Key Points:
$450
$1,200
• $1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)
$300
$800
$150
$400
$0
$0
-$150
-$400
-$300
-$800
Undiscounted Cash Flow
-$450
Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow
-$600
-$1,200
-$1,600
-3 -2 -1 1
2
3 4
5
6
7 8
Cumulative After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions)
After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions)
A F T E R TA X C A S H F L O W ( B A S E C A S E )
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Year of Operation
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.
• $294 million/year Years 1-4
• $254 million/year Years 1-8
• Payback in 3.4 years (after tax)
43
E M P L OY M E N T
SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT & INDIRECT IMPACT
Number of Direct Employees
600
44
Direct Employment Estimates - Operations
500
Key points:
• $28,000/year avg. salary in Idaho
• $72,500/year avg. mining salary in Idaho
400
• 3 year construction period:
300
• ~700 jobs created in Idaho
- ~400 direct jobs
200
- >300 indirect jobs
• 12 year operating life:
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Year of Operation
Mine Operations
Mine Maintenance
General & Admin.
Mine General
Process
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.
• ~1,000 jobs created in Idaho
- ~500 direct jobs
- ~500 indirect jobs
• Aggregate annual payroll:
•
$48 million/year - Construction
•
$56 million/year - Operations
TA X PAY M E N T S ( B A S E C A S E )
SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS
45
Key points:
Local, State and Federal Taxes ($ million)
$90
• Significant contribution to the local, state
and federal economies:
$80
$70
• 15 year construction and operating life
$60
• Taxes paid by Midas Gold over project life:
$50
$40
• $329 million federal tax
$30
• $86 million state & local tax
• Indirect & induced taxes paid by others
$20
• >$300 million federal, state & local
$10
$-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Year
Other federal, state and local taxes resulting from Midas Gold's
activities
Midas Gold federal taxes
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.
• 15-year total taxes:
• $506 million federal tax
• $218 million state & local tax
P F S v s P E A – L I F E - O F - M I N E C A P I TA L C O S T S
LOWER MINING CAPEX MORE THAN OFFSETS OTHER CHANGES
Changes:
Life-of-Mine CAPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS
1,400
Life-of-Mine CAPEX ($ millions)
1,200
$1,182
• Reductions in mining related costs
-$176
$97
$19
-$28
$1,125
$31
1,000
• Smaller Hangar Flats pit reduces waste
rock and additional equipment
requirements
• Leasing major mining equipment
800
• Contingency reduced
600
• Refined project estimates
400
• Increases in process plant CAPEX
200
0
46
• Related to design changes
LOM PEA
CAPEX
Mining
Processing Infrastructure Owner Costs Contigency
Contingency LOM PFS
and Utilities
Mitigation
CAPEX
and Closure
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.
• Increased onsite & offsite infrastructure
• Power line and access road
• Increased closure costs
• Improved quantification of requirements
P F S v s P E A – L I F E - O F - M I N E O P E R AT I N G C O S T S
HIGHER UNIT MINING COSTS AND FINER GRINDING ARE MAIN SOURCES OF INCREASED COSTS
Changes:
Life-of-Mine OPEX - Comparing PEA to PFS
$27
$1.82
$24
Life-of-Mine OPEX ($/t)
$21
$1.91
$19.06
- $0.63
$0.94
$24.40
$12
• More detailed mine planning
34% of increase
• Finer grinding
• Addition of 1.7% royalty
36% of increase
• Reduced G&A
$9
• Modest impact on NPV5%
$6
$3
$0
• Reduction in by-product credits
• Leasing costs for mining equipment
$1.30
$18
$15
• Operating costs have increased 28%
PEA Total By-Product Mining & Processing General &
Royalty
Cash Costs Revenue Stockpiling
Administration
PFS Total
Cash Costs
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this
presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the
end of this presentation.
47
P F S v s P E A – N E T P R E S E N T VA L U E
REDUCED PAYABLE METALS IS SOURCE OF LARGEST REDUCTION IN NPV
Changes:
Life-of-Mine After-tax NPV5% - Comparing PEA to PFS
Project NPV at 5% Discount Rate ($ millions)
$1,600
$1,482
$1,400
-$74
-$387
• Decrease in payable metal:
11% of reduction
• Inferred resources excluded in PFS
60% of reduction
• Changes in mineral resource estimation
process
$1,200
-$120
$1,000
-$63
$800
-$6
$832
• Increases to OPEX
$600
• Finer grinding
• Increased electricity costs & consumption,
grinding media consumption
$400
$200
$0
• Decrease in metal prices
• Unit mining costs
PEA
PEA
NPV
NPV
5%
Change in
Change in
Change in Addition of
Opex
Payable Metal Metal Prices
Royalty
Change in
Capex
PFS
PFS
NPV5%
NPV
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.
• Lower cost Hangar Flats material eliminated
• More detailed haulage profiles
• Addition of 1.7% royalty
48
THE PERMITTING PROCESS – MINE PLAN REVIEW
From 2010 through 2014, 68 mine plans were
approved by the BLM and US Forest Service.
Time Frames for Approving 68
Mine Plans
23
20
12
7
# approved plans
# acres
Arizona
4
52
Alaska
6
105
California
2
180
Colorado
3
32
Gold
Idaho
8
674
Clay
Montana
3
15
Nevada
11
16,600
New Mexico
2
38
Oregon
4
242
Utah
8
674
Washington
1
17
Wyoming
21
17,920
Mine Plan Approval by
Commodity Type
6
Stone
Uranium
0-12
12-24
24-36
36-48
48
months months months months months +
Source: US Government Accountability Office Report (Jan. 2016)
The average timeframe for mine plan approval:
2 years
State
49
50
REGULATORY INFORMATION
COMPLIANCE WITH NI43-101
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 (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 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 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.
NON-IFRS REPORTING MEASURES
"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.
52
F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N :
TEL: 778.724.4700
FAX: 604.558.4700
E-MAIL: [email protected]
SUITE 1250 – 999 WEST HASTINGS STREET
VANCOUVER, BC CANADA V6C 2W2
WWW.MIDASGOLDCORP.COM
Check out our video:

Similar documents