Arizona Metals Corp. Corporate Presentation
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Arizona Metals Corp. *
October 2019
Corporate Presentation March 2019
*Name change from Croesus Gold Corp subject to shareholder approval at upcoming Special Meeting
Arizona Metals Corp.
Forward-Looking Statement
Statements contained in this presentation that are not gold will be sustained or will improve; that general business two mineral projects; the nature of mineral exploration and
historical facts are “forward-looking information” or “forward- and economic conditions will not change in a materially mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain
looking statements” (collectively, “Forward-Looking adverse manner and that all necessary governmental mineral deposits; the Company’s lack of operating revenues;
Information”) within the meaning of applicable Canadian approvals for the planned exploration on the Kay Mine Project governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary
securities legislation and the United States Private Securities and Sugarloaf Peak projects will be obtained in a timely licenses and permits; risks related to mineral properties being
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward Looking Information manner and on acceptable terms; the continuity of the price of subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims
includes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible gold and other metals, that the Company’s existing patented and other defects in title; impacts to patented and unpatented
events, conditions or financial performance that is based on and unpatented land has not been altered by any designation land by designation under U.S. Federal Statute or other laws,
assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of under U.S. Federal statute or other laws and economic and currency fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and
action; the timing and costs of future exploration and testing political conditions and operations. regulations and changes in the application of standards
activities on the Company’s properties; success of exploration pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may increase
activities; time lines for technical reports; planned exploration Forward-Looking Information involves known and unknown costs of doing business and restrict operations; risks related to
and development of properties and the results thereof; and risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the dependence on key personnel; and estimates used in financial
planned expenditures and budgets and the execution thereof. actual results, performance or achievements of the Company statements proving to be incorrect. Although the Company has
Statements concerning historical mineral resource estimates to be materially different from any future results, performance attempted to identify important factors that could affect the
may also be deemed to constitute forward looking information or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Company and may cause actual actions, events or results to
to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization Information. Such risks and other factors include, among differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking
that will be encountered if the property is developed. In certain others, obtaining financing on commercially reasonable terms, Information, there may be other factors that cause actions,
cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the operations and contractual obligations; changes in exploration events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or
use of words and phrases such as “plans”, “expects” or “does programs based upon results of exploration; future prices of intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking
not expect”, “is expected”, budget”, “scheduled”, “suggest”, metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and
“optimize”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; future events could differ materially from those anticipated in
“potential” or “does not anticipate”, believes”, “anomalous” or accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue
variations of such words and phrases or statements that and other risks associated with the mineral exploration reliance on Forward-Looking Information. Except as required
certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters by law, the Company does not assume any obligation to
“might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. In making under U.S. federal and Arizona rules and regulations; impact release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information
the forward-looking statements in this presentation, the of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of contained in this presentation to reflect events or
Company has applied several material assumptions, including, existing and potential consent decrees on the Company’s circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the
but not limited to, that the current testing and other objectives planned exploration on the Kay Mine Project and Sugarloaf occurrence of unanticipated events.
concerning the Kay Mine Project and Sugarloaf Peak project Peak project; certainty of mineral title; community relations;
can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing;
proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for fluctuations in mineral prices; the Company’s dependence on
2
Arizona Metals Corp.
Investment Highlights
Kay Mine Project, Yavapai County, Arizona
• 100%-owned, comprising 70 patented acres and 1,260 acres of BLM claims
• High grade VMS deposit with underground exploration from 1951 to 1979
• Historic resource estimate of 6Mt at 5.8% CuEq (2.2% Cu, 3.03% Zn, 2.81 g/t Au,
55 g/t Ag), or 742Mlb copper equivalent
• Open at depth and only 25% of known strike tested
Sugarloaf Peak Project, La Paz County Arizona
• 100%-owned, comprising 222 BLM claims covering 4,410 acres
• Historic resource estimate of 1.5Moz gold at 0.5g/t Au
• Heap-leach, open-pit target open for expansion in all directions
• Starts at surface, oxidized, flat-lying, and tabular
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101
guidelines. Significant data compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the
historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet
undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not treating the historic estimate as
a current resource
3
Arizona Metals Corp.
Leadership Team
Marc Pais, President and CEO, Director Paul Reid MBA, Executive Chairman
• B.Sc. Geological Engineering (Mineral Exploration) from Queen’s • 15 years of experience in financing mineral exploration, development
University and production assets
• Founder and former President of Telegraph Gold (listed as Castle • Founder and former Chairman of Telegraph Gold (listed as Castle
Mountain Mining, later acquired by Equinox Gold) Mountain Mining, later acquired by Equinox Gold)
• Seven years experience as a Mining Analyst, with a focus on precious • An Investment Banking professional with extensive experience in
metals development companies raising capital, going-public transactions and advisory services
Sung Min (Eric) Myung, Chief Financial Officer Colin Sutherland, Director
• Senior Financial Analyst at Marrelli Support Services Inc. • CPA with 20 years operational and financial experience
• Previously worked at public accounting firms for 7 years • Most recently served as President of McEwen Mining (NYSE:MUX)
• Canadian Professional Accountant designation (TSX:MUX)
• Master of Accounting degree from University of Waterloo • Served as CEO and Managing Director of Archipelago Resources Plc,
where he grew production to 200,000 ounces per year
Conor Dooley, Corporate Secretary, Director • Held senior financial and executive roles with Timmins Gold, Capital
• Partner at WeirFoulds LLC in Toronto Gold, Nayarit Gold, and Aurico Gold
• Advises clients in securities regulatory matters and capital markets
transactions Rick Vernon, Director
• LLB from Dalhousie University • 30 years experience as mining finance professional
• Previously Managing Director, Head of Investment Banking at PI
Dr. Mark Hannington, Technical Advisor Financial Corp.
• 35 years of experience as a research geologist, specializing on • Previously Managing Director, Head of Investment Banking at Stonecap
volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits and the metallogeny of modern Securities Inc.
and ancient volcanic belts • BSc in Geological Sciences from Queen’s University
• Currently a Professor of Economic Geology at the University of Ottawa • MBA from University of Southern California
• Previously worked as a senior scientist in mineral resources at the
Geological Survey of Canada for 15 years David Smith CPG, Vice President of Exploration
• BSc in Geology from Queen’s University • 30 years of global precious metals exploration experience, including co-
• MSc and PhD from the University of Toronto discovery of ~1M oz Au eq Solidaridad/La Sabila deposit, Mexico
• Core expertise is managing mineral projects from acquisition to
exploration, resource modeling, and project development
• MSc from University of Oregon
• MBA from Pinchot University/Presidio Graduate School
4
Arizona Metals Corp.
Capital Structure
Shares Outstanding (basic) 49.5M
Options 7.1M
Warrants 6.8M
Shares Outstanding (FD) 63.4M
Cash at September 30, 2019 $2.5M
Ownership by Management and Insiders 15.1M (31%)
Ownership
Management
and Insiders
31%
Retail and
Institutional
Investors
55%
Riverside
Resources
14%
5
Arizona Metals Corp.
History of the Kay Mine
• Prior to 1900: Kay Mine was discovered and mined on a small scale from the inclined No. 1 shaft, produced 635 tonnes
• 1918 to 1929: Kay Copper Company – deepened the No. 1 Shaft to 457 m (1,500 ft), sunk the No. 4 shaft to 366 m (1,200 ft),
installed the No. 3 Shaft, and developed several thousand feet of underground workings on 11 levels, discovering the ore
bodies above the 600 Level but produced no ore. The company drilled at least 89 underground drill holes. The Kay Copper
Company failed in the late 1920s and the project was dormant until 1949, apparently from a combination of low metals prices
and litigation
• 1949 to 1956: Various Mid-Century Operators – in 1949 Black Canyon Copper Corporation, opened the underground workings
to the 500 Level and shipped about 907 tonnes (1,000 short tons) of ore. In 1949, Black Canyon Copper sub-leased the project
to Shattuck-Denn Mining Company and New Jersey Zinc Company until 1952. These companies dewatered and rehabilitated
the No. 4 Shaft at least to the 1000 Level, and performed surface and underground exploration, including resampling and
underground diamond drilling of at least 14 holes. They shipped 1,425 tonnes of ore(1,571 short tons). In 1955-1956, the
project was leased to Republic Metals Company, which shipped 414 tonnes (456 short tons) of ore from above the 350 Level. A
cave-in destroyed pumping operations, and the mine was allowed to flood
• 1972 to 1984: Exxon Minerals – the project was acquired by Exxon Minerals Company in 1972, which completed geologic
mapping; “mine mapping”; relogging drill core and cuttings; petrographic studies; assaying 610 m (2,000 ft) of unassayed drill
core; stream sediment and soil geochemistry surveys; reviewing historical assay data and incorporating into mine maps and
cross sections; and geophysical surveys. Exxon drilled 23 core/rotary exploration holes totaling 8,094 m (26,554 ft), 14 of which
were in the immediate vicinity of the Kay Mine and which total 6,807 m (22,333 ft)
• 1990 to 2015: Post-Exxon Multiple Owners – the five patented claims changed hands a number of times between 1990 and
2015, without exploration work. In 1990 Exxon sold the five patented claims to Rayrock Mines, which in turn sold them to
American Copper and Nickel Company in 1995. Ownership changed a number of times until 2015, but no exploration work
completed
• 2017 to 2018: Silver Spruce Resources – in March, 2017, Silver Spruce Resources Inc. acquired five patented mining claims
and then staked 14 unpatented Kay Mine mining claims in April, 2017. Silver Spruce took 39 samples on the project but did no
other exploration work
• 2018 to present: Arizona Metals USA Corp – on September 26, 2018, Arizona Metals USA Corp signed a letter of intent to
acquire the five patented and 14 unpatented Kay Mine claims from Silver Spruce Resources. To date, Arizona Metals Corp has
performed initial geologic and geophysical exploration on the project and staked 50 additional unpatented mining claims
6
Arizona Metals Corp.
Project Locations
• Kay Mine – located 45 miles
north of Phoenix, Arizona
• High-grade VMS deposit
with historic resource
estimate of 742Mlb copper
at 5.8% CuEq
• Sugarloaf Peak – located 130
miles west of Phoenix, Arizona
• Heap-leach, open-pit target
Source: Fellows, 1982 (Exxon Minerals) and Dausinger 1983 (Westworld Resources)
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101
guidelines. Significant data compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the
historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet
undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not treating the historic estimate as
a current resource
7
Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine Project Overview – within 2 hours drive of two smelter complexes
8
Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine Project Overview – surrounded by high-grade historic past
producing VMS mines
United Verde: Produced 30Mt at 4.8% copper produced by Phelps
Dodge
Extension: Blind discovery underground that produced 3.5 Mt at 10.2%
Cu, 1.3 g/t Au, 58 g/t Ag
1884 - 1975
Iron King Mine: Produced 5.1Mt at 4.2g/t Au, 127 g/t Ag,
Old Dick Mine: Produced 1.35Mt at 3.5%
7.3% Zn, 2.5% Pb, and 0.2% Cu
Cu, 12% Zn, 0.7g/t Au and 11g/t Ag
1903 - 1969
1947 - 1966
Bruce Mine: Produced 822kt Blue Bell Mine: Produced 1.1Mt at 3% Cu, 2g/t Au, and
at 3.3% Cu, 9.0% Zn 51g/t Ag
1968-1977 1903 - 1959
Kay Mine
(Arizona Metals Corp.)
9
Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine Project Overview 390500 391000 391500 392000 392500 393000 393500 394000 394500
Ü
3771000
3771000
.
!
• Located 45 miles north of Phoenix in
3770500
3770500
the Yavapai County, Arizona .
! .
!
.
!
Shaft No 3
¸
3770000
3770000
• Kay deposit host stratigraphy has .
!
been traced over 5,600 feet at
3769500
3769500
.
!
Shaft No 1
.
!
!!
.
.
!
. .
!!
.
¸ .
! .
!
Shaft No 4
surface with only 25% (1,400 feet of .
! .
!
¸
.
!
.
!
strike) drill tested .!
!. No 2
3769000
3769000
Shaft
¸
.
!
.
!
3768500
3768500
• Mineralization consists of two Legend
Recently Staked BLM Claims
steeply dipping massive sulfide Kay Mine Patented Claim Boundary
3768000
3768000
KayMine Unpatented Claim Boundary
bodies ¸ Mine Shaft
.
! Drill Collars
3767500
3767500
Mineralized Orebodies
Projected to Surface
• In 1982, it was estimated the Kay .
! .
! 200 - 350 Levels
500 - 800 Levels
3767000
3767000
Mine hosted 6Mt at 5.8% CuEq (2% 1000 - 1200 Levels
1350 - 1500 Levels
CuEq cut-off grade) 2100 Level
3766500
3766500
Datum: WGS 84 UTM Zone 12N
0 250 500 1,000
Meters
Source: Fellows, 1982 (Exxon Minerals) 390500 391000 391500 392000 392500 393000 393500 394000 394500
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101
guidelines. Significant data compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the
historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet
undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not treating the historic estimate as
a current resource
10Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine Historic Resource Estimate
Kay Mine
Tonnes (Mt) 5.8
Cu Grade (%) 2.20%
Zn grade (%) 3.03%
Silver Grade (g/t) 55
Gold grade (g/t) 2.81
Kay Deposit Value by Metal
Silver, 7%
Zinc, 22%
Copper, 39%
Gold, 31%
Source: Fellows, 1982
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be 11
compliant with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the
Company is not treating the historic estimate as a current resourceArizona Metals Corp.
Historic Grade Estimates
Source: Estimates by Arizona Metals Corp. Data from Exxon Minerals 1972-1982
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
12Arizona Metals Corp.
Historic Kay Mine Project Overview
Source: Estimates by Arizona Metals Corp. Data from Exxon Minerals 1972-1982
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
13Arizona Metals Corp.
Proposed Kay Mine Project Phase 1 Drill Program of 5,000 m in 12 holes
392400 392500 392600 392700 392800 392900 393000 393100
¯
0
58
58 0
66 0
66 0
58
0
58 0
58 0
0
58
3769500
3769500
0
58
0
68
67 0
0
59
60 0
580
58 0
58
Shaft No 1
0
58 0
58 0
58 0
58 0
580
0
58
580
0
58
0
0
66
58
58
0
580
0
58
3769400
3769400
0
58
630
Pad 1
580
64
58 0
0
64
580
0
64 0
T8N
65
0
580
R2E
590
A B
Pad 3
58 0
590
0
65
0
64
58 0
590
59
3769300
3769300
0
600
64 59 0
0
Pad 2
58 0
58 0
59 0
590
58 0
59 0
0
63
59
0 C D
0
58
0
65
590
590
58 0
620
59
3769200
3769200
0
640
580
620
E F
0 0
65 58
Mineralized Orebodies K
Legend L
610
Projected to Surface
65 0
63
Proposed Drilling 58
200 - 350 Levels
0
0
580
Proposed Drill Pads
3769100
3769100
500 - 800 Levels
580
65 0
580
590
Kay Mine Property Boundary 1000 - 1200 Levels
M G
58
0
!
. Historic Drill Collars 1350 - 1500 Levels N
62
0
580
59 0
59
H
0
0 50 100 200 Datum: WGS 84 UTM Zone 12N 2100 Level
Meters 59
630
0
59
0
392400 392500 392600 392700 392800 392900 393000 393100 O
P
I
J
R
Q
S T
Looking NE
14Arizona Metals Corp.
March 2019 helicopter VTEM survey defined a number of targets west of Kay Mine
390500 391000 391500 392000 392500 393000 393500
3770500
3770500
¯
( KA-2
! ( KA-5
!
K-17
(
!
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 46 ¸Shaft No 3
3770000
3770000
K-1
(
!
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 47 K-5
KA-9 K-12 K-3!
(K-4 KA-6_E
3769500
3769500
(
!
Old Workings (Gossan Zone) K-13
!
(
( K-8
! (
!
(K-10A !
!
K-9 ¸ Shaft
(
! (
!
No 1
( K-7
!
( K-2 KV-3
K-6
¸Shaft No 4
K-10
(
! (
! (
!
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 48 KV-2 K-16
(
! !!
( ( K-14
3769000
3769000
Shaft No 2
¸ KA-7
(
!
KV-1
(
!
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 49
3768500
3768500
45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 50
0 250 500 1,000
Meters
390500 391000 391500 392000 392500 393000 393500
Source: Arizona Metals Corp, March 2019
15Arizona Metals Corp.
Maxwell Plate Modelling of VTEM Identified 4 Untested Conductors
16Arizona Metals Corp.
• 3 drill holes proposed to test the Central Conductor (MX2) and 6 for the Western Conductor (MX1)
17Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine Depth Potential Compared to VMS Deposits in Production
• Kay Mine is higher grade and only a fraction of the depth compared to operating copper mines
– Lalor Lake (Hudbay Minerals), LaRonde (Agnico Eagle) and Kidd Creek (Glencore)
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101
guidelines. Significant data compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the
historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet
undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not treating the historic estimate as
a current resource
18Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine CuEq Grade Comparables
Copper Grade Average Grade
6.0% 5.8%
4.9%
5.0%
Copper Equivalent Grade (%)
4.3%
4.0% 3.8%
3.2%
3.0%
3.0% Average: 2.8%
2.0%
1.0% 0.7%
0.0%
Nevada Copper Aquila Kutcho Constantine Adventus Atico Kay Mine
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
Source: Company reports 19Arizona Metals Corp.
Kay Mine EV/Resource (cents/lb) compared to Underground Peers
16.0
14.8
14.0
EV/Resource CuEq (cents/lb)
12.0
10.0
8.4
8.0
6.0 5.6
Average: 4.8 cents/lb
4.0
2.6 2.7
2.0 2.1
0.9
0.0
Arizona Metals Kutcho Constantine Nevada Copper Aquila Atico Adventus
*
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
Source: Company reports 20Arizona Metals Corp.
High Grade Copper-Gold VMS deposits are scarce and trade at a premium valuation
Arizona Metals Corp
Company
Symbol TSXV:AMC
Share Price $0.20
Market Capitalization (M) $10
Cash (M) $2.5
Earn-In Payments O/S (M) $0
Enterprise Value (M) $7.5
Project Name Kay Mine
Location Arizona
Ownership 100%
Royalties None
14,000m combined surface
Total Historic Drilling (Kay Mine)
and U/G
Cut-off Grade (CuEq) 2.0%
Total Attributable Resource* 5.8Mt at 5.8% CuEq
Contained CuEq (Mlbs) 742
EV/lb CuEq $0.01
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
21Arizona Metals Corp.
Sugarloaf Peak Deposit Provides Additional Optionality to Shareholders –
Historic Resource Estimate of 1.5Moz gold at 0.5g/t
746000 747000 748000 749000
± • Coincident magnetic low
3726000
Target C-5
!
(
!!
CS-4
!
(
!!
CS-5
and IP chargeability
SGL-11-01
!
(
!!
WW-10
!
(
! !
WW-3
SGL-11-05
!
(
! !
CS-3
!.
!
ASP-04 SGL-11-04
!
(
!
SGL-11-04 anomalies extend 2 km to
!
!
(
!!
SGR-12-07
WW-7 !
(
!
!
. ASP-03
CS-6
! ASP-02 ! !
(
! ! (
!
CS-10 !
! !
!
(
!!
!
.
! SGR-12-08
!
(
!
the NW of historic resource
!
SGR-12-19
!
(
!
!
SGL-11-03!
.
!
SLP-09-004
!
(
!
SGL-11-02 !
!
(
!(
! ! ASP-01
!
!
(
!
Target C-3
!
!
WW-1
!
(
!!
SWR-13 SWR-12
!
(
! !
SGR-12-09
SWR-7
!
(
!
(Target C-5) and 1.5km to
SLP-09-002 !
SWR-11 SWR-10 !
(
!
(
! SLP-09-003 !
!
WW-8!
!
(
! !(
!
SLP-09-001
! ! (
! !
SGL-11-06 SWR-9
!
(
! !(
! !
!
(
! SWR-8 !
(
! !
!
1.5Moz
( SWR-1 historic
!
WW-4 !
(
! WW-9 !(
! Target C-1 !
!
!
! !
SWR-3
SGR-12-18 !
(
! !
!
(
! SWR-2 !
(
! SGR-12-12 ! WW-6
Target C-4 !
resource
3725000
!
!
(
!
!
SGR-12-11 CS-7 !
!( !
(
!
(
! !
the SE
! !
!
SGR-12-17
!
(
!! !(
! !
(
! ! ! SWR-6
SGR-12-10
!(
!
!
(
!
SWR-4 !
SLP-09-005 WW-5
!
!
Central Zone Exploration Targets WW-2 (
! !(
! CS-12
! !
!
!
(
!
!
(
! !
Legend SGR-12-13 !
(
!
!
!
SWR-5
Central Zone exploration targets
Drillholes
!
(
!
!
CS-9
• Previous holes include:
Grade*Thickness (ppm*m) Target C-2
! 0-5 CS-8
!
! !
(
!
66m of 0.54 g/t
!
•
6 - 15
! 16 - 30
! 31 - 45
SWR-16
! 46 - 69
Alteration
Silicic
Au contours
> 500 ppb Au
!
(
!
!
CS-1
!
(
!!
SGR-12-15
!
(
! !
! • 88m of 0.78 g/t
Argillic and sericitic
> 200 ppb Au SGR-12-14
Propylitic
!
125m of 0.4 g/t (EOH)
CS-11
GO !
(
!
•
!
Riverside Claims Cable OD
MA
NF !CS-11A
3724000
Third Party Placer Claims Pipeline AU
LT
?
Third Party Lode Claims Roads
100m of 0.42 g/t Au
0 250 500
Datum: NAD83, UTM Zone 11N
m
!
(
! !
SGR-12-16
•
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a Gcurrent
OO
DM
AN resource and the Company is not
FAU
treating the historic estimate as a current resource LT
?
Source: Dausinger, 1983 (Westworld Resources), and Choice Gold 2011-2012 22Arizona Metals Corp.
Sugarloaf – Long Sections
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
23Arizona Metals Corp.
Sugarloaf – Deposit Open Laterally and at Depth
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
24Arizona Metals Corp.
Mining Friendly Jurisdiction
Permitting Water Infrastructure
• Permitting underway – • Groundwater most likely • Adjacent to Interstate Highway 10
drill permit for 10,000m source for mining
program expected Q4’19 operations (similar to • Easy access to roads, rail, natural
Copperstone) gas, and electricity
• Located 15 miles from
past-producing • Drill holes on and near • 8 km west of the town of
Copperstone Mine the project (2.6 km) Quartzsite
encountered
• Both Copperstone and groundwater
Sugarloaf are on BLM
claims in La Paz County • Possible other sources
include Bouse Canal
• Copperstone open pit (20km) and Colorado
gold mine operated from River (15km)
1987-1993 (Produced
over 500koz)
25Arizona Metals Corp.
Sugarloaf Open-Pit, Heap-Leach Company Comparables
Average
Shares Total Ounces EV /
Share Market Cap Enterprise Total Grade
Company Symbol Deposit Location
Price (M) Value (M) Tonnes Resource
O/S (M) (g/t Au) (MozAu)
($/oz)
North
Corvus Gold KOR-T Nevada 112 $2.57 $289 $282 70 0.63 1.4 $201
Bullfrog
Northern Vertex NEE-V Moss Arizona 245 $0.32 $78 $82 18 0.84 0.5 $172
Revival Gold RVG-V Beartrack Idaho 52 $0.71 $37 $48 27 1.50 1.3 $37
Caballo
Candelaria CAND-V Mexico 114 $0.25 $28 $19 40 0.48 0.6 $31
Blanco
Gold
TriMetals Mining TMI-T Nevada 247 $0.07 $17 $18 35 0.61 0.7 $26
Springs
West Kirkland WKM-V Hasbrouk Nevada 409 $0.08 $31 $30 117 0.33 1.2 $25
Almaden
AMM-T Ixtaca Mexico 112 $0.89 $99 $83 173 0.82 4.6 $18
Minerals
Average - - - - - - - 68 0.74 1.5 $73
Arizona Metals AMC-V Sugarloaf Arizona 50 $0.20 $10 $7 93 0.50 1.5 $5
Source: Company Reports; $ in millions ex. Share Price
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
26Arizona Metals Corp.
Summary
• Two 100% owned projects in mining-friendly Arizona
• Excellent infrastructure at both projects-road, power and water access
• Kay Mine is a high-grade VMS target with historic resource estimate of
6Mt at 5.8% CuEq*
• Sugarloaf is a near-surface, open-pit target with a 1.5Moz gold historic
resource estimate*
• Kay Mine valuation of $0.01/lb CuEq compared to high-grade VMS peers
at an average of $0.05/lb
• Sugarloaf valuation of $5/oz compared to heap leach peers at an
average of $73/oz
* The historical estimates for the Kay Mine and Sugarloaf Peak Projects predate and are unclassified and not compliant with NI 43-101 guidelines. Significant data
compilation, re-drilling, re-sampling and data verification may be required by a Qualified Person before the historic resource can be verified and upgraded to be compliant
with current NI 43-101 standards. The Company’s QP has not yet undertaken sufficient work to classify the historic estimate as a current resource and the Company is not
treating the historic estimate as a current resource
27Arizona Metals Corp.
Contact
Marc Pais President & CEO
416.565.7689
mpais@arizonametalscorp.com
Paul Reid Chairman
416.845.9311
preid@arizonametalscorp.com
Website
http://www.arizonametalscorp.com/
Twitter
https://twitter.com/ArizonaCorp
28You can also read
