STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT - Idaho, USA MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX - Midas Gold
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
1
STIBNITE GOLD
PROJECT
Idaho, USA MAX.TSX
MDRPF.OTCQX
“We can take an area abandoned after 100 years of mining
and use a sustainable approach to restore the environment
and develop a modern mining industry.” April 2020
2
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively, "Forward-Looking
Information") within 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 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", "could" or "may", "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. 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.
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 technical report titled "Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley
County, Idaho" dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March 28, 2019 (the "PFS") and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commercially
reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds of such financing(s); operations and contractual obligations; 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; 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; risks related to mineral
properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; changes in laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards
pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may result in unforeseen results in the review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (including a joint review process
involving the U.S. States Forest Services ("USFS"); uncertainty surrounding input to be received pursuant to the public comment period; risks related to unforeseen delays in the
review process including availability of personnel from the USFS, State of Idaho and other agencies and regulatory bodies (including, but not limited to, future U.S. government
shutdowns); uncertainty as to what further actions or steps, if any, the Nez Perce Tribe will take; risks related to opposition to the Stibnite Gold Project; 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
04
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.
3
We are driven by the belief that building a strong and successful business for
our employees, partners and shareholders starts with doing business the right
way. For a modern mining company, this means we designed a mining project
that restores the environment, creates opportunity and benefits the
surrounding communities. We believe that economic success and environmental
success are inseparable, and this drives everything we do.
4
HIGHLIGHTS (1)(2)
Midas Gold & the Stibnite Gold Project
World Class Gold Project (1,2) Strength & Support
• ~US$210m spent on the Project since IPO in 2011 • Community Support › Strong local and state support
• Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA – a stable mining jurisdiction • Key investors › Paulson, Barrick, Franco-Nevada and Teck
• Corporate Depth › Experienced management team and strong
• Brownfields site › Restoration of extensive prior disturbance
boards with local, state & federal experience
• Positive 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study › US$832 million NPV & 19.3% • Funding › ~US$17.5 million cash at December 31, 2019
IRR (after tax at 5% discount rate) at $1,350/oz gold
> additional US$35 million raised in March 2020
• Multi-million ounce deposit › 7th largest gold reserve in USA*
• Size › 4 million oz gold produced over 12 year mine life
• Superior grade › 1.7g/t gold; 4th highest grade open pit deposit in
USA*
• Scale › 388,000oz gold/year (yrs 1-4) & 337,000oz gold/year (LOM)
• Modest capital intensity › US$242/oz life of mine production
• Low all-in sustaining costs › US$526/oz for first 4 years (cash cost +
royalties + sustaining capital), US$616/oz LOM
• Strong after-tax cash flow › US$294 million/year (Years 1-4) & In this presentation, “M” = million, “k” = thousands, all
US$254 million/year (Years 1-8) amounts in US$, “LOM “ = Life-of-mine
• Strategic by-products › Antimony + silver (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
• Exploration potential › All deposits open to expansion and multiple presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained
exploration prospects already drilled in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
(2) See non-IFRS measures at conclusion
* S&P Global
5
Shares Outstanding (at Mar. 31/20) 271.5 million Issued ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS
Market Capitalization
Institutional
Convertible Notes* 243.2 million ISSUED
(Based on share price of C$0.46) Barrick
23%
Subtotal 514.7 million C$125 million 29% Paulson
Options 23.0 million
High Net Worth Individuals
1% Teck & Vista
20%
Warrants 2.0 million 8%
Directors and Management
15%
Fully Diluted 539.7 million 4%
Retail and Other
* Convertible Notes issued at 0.05% interest; 140.9 million convertible at $0.3541 (March 2016
financing); 102.3 million convertible at $0.4655 (March 2020 financing); 7 year money,
Company can redeem after four years if share price is double the conversion price. FULLY DILUTED Institutional
13%
18% Paulson
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
2%
Barrick
5%
High Net Worth Individuals
8%
Teck & Vista
43%
11% Directors & Management
Strong and supportive shareholder base Retail & Other
• Major shareholders include: Barrick, M&G, Sun Valley, Franklin, VanEck, Teck Franco Nevada (warrants)
Corp., Gabelli, Oppenheimer
ANALYST COVERAGE
• 2013: Franco Nevada purchased a 1.7% NSR for US$15m Haywood Securities Geordie Mark 604.697.6112
• 2016 & 2019: Paulson invested US$25 million and US$5.8 million, respectively PI Financial Chris Thompson 604.718.7544
• 2018 & 2019: Barrick invested US$38 million and US$4.4 million, respectively
Paradigm Don Blyth 416.361.9892
• 2020: Paulson invested US$35 million
6 STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
7
IDAHO
Lucky Friday Mine
Coeur d’Alene Hecla Mining Company
New Jersey Mining
Golden Chest
Galena Complex
Sunshine Mine Americas Silver
Sunshine Silver Mines
Stibnite Gold Project
Midas Gold Au-Sb
Idaho: the right place
Beartrack Mine
Revival Gold
McCall Idaho Cobalt Project
Jervois
Cascade
Iron Creek
Thompson Creek Mine First Cobalt
Centerra Gold Inc.
• A mining friendly state – #5 Ranked Mining Jurisdiction in USA*
BOISE
• Well defined permitting process DeLamar Project
• Strong community and political support Integra Resources
Phosphate District
• Low geopolitical risk Itafos, Simplot, Stonegate
• Significant investments by senior mining companies:
• Barrick, Kinross, Yamana and Agnico Eagle NEVADA
Twin Creeks
Barrick/Newmont
Turquoise Ridge Goldstrike Mine
Barrick/Newmont Barrick/Newmont
Cortez
Barrick/Newmont UTAH
* Fraser institute Survey 2019
8
Payable Gold Production Payable Antimony Production
Average Annual Production Total Production (millions lbs)
Average Annual Production Total Production
388,000
Years 1-4 14.0
1,551,000 Years 1-4
Preliminary
56.0
337,000
Feasibility Study
8.3 99.9
LOM LOM
4,040,000
(PFS)*
Capital Costs (US$ millions) 22.0% Cash Costs vs. Gold Price
December 2014 pre-tax
(US$/oz) (2)
(at US$1,350 gold) Years 1-4 $1,350
IRR 19.3% LOM
after-tax**
$1,125 Gold Price
$970
$483 $568
$1,093M
pre-tax
NPV5% (US$)
$832M
after-tax**
Initial LOM AISC AISC
$506 $616
* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in
the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. **Taxes as valid in 2014; does not account for 2018 reduction in US Federal Income tax rate from 35% to 21%.
9
ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTS
in the USA
Donlin
2018 Production 000s oz Gold
LARGEST US GOLD RESERVES
Barrick Nevada
Newmont Nevada
LARGEST US GOLD MINES
Newmont Nevada
Barrick Nevada
Stibnite Gold (Yrs 1-4)* 3rd largest years 1-4
P&P 000s oz Gold
Hycroft
Round Mountain Turquoise Ridge
Cripple Creek & Victor Livengood
Turquoise Ridge Stibnite 7th largest
Stibnite Gold (LoM)* 6th largest LOM Castle Mountain
Cripple Creek and Victor
Bald Mountain
Alaska Juneau
Fort Knox
Marigold
Marigold Fort Knox
Bingham Canyon Haile
Pogo Round Mountain
Goldrush
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Donlin Barrick Nevada
LARGEST US GOLD RESOURCES
Newmont Nevada Donlin
HIGHEST GRADE US OPEN PIT
Barrick Nevada Haile
Hycroft Stibnite 4th highest grade
M&I 000s oz Gold
Livengood Long Canyon
GOLD RESERVES
Goldrush Goldfield
P&P g/t Gold
Turquoise Ridge Gold Bar
Converse Newmont Nevada
Stibnite Gold 9th largest Wharf
Fort Knox Mount Hamilton
Marigold Relief Canyon
Round Mountain Livengood
Bald Mountain Round Mountain
Cripple Creek and Victor Soledad Mountain
Bald Mountain
Castle Mountain
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence *Based on the Stibnite Gold 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study; **Open-Pit Reserves >0.5Mozs gold Circled Projects denote Nevada Gold Mines/Projects
10
ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS
Lowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*
2018 Gold AISC Cost Curve
Cash Cost Summary* LOM Yrs 1-4
US$/oz US$/oz
$3,000
Mining $222 $222
Processing $354 $312
$2,500
All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/oz)
G&A $77 $67
By-Product Credits -$85 -$118
$2,000
Cash Cost Net By Products $568 $483
Royalties $23 $23
Refining & Transport $6 $8 $1,500
Total Cash Costs $597 $513
Sustaining Capex $24 $44 $1,000
All-In-Sustaining Costs $616 $526 Stibnite Project
Yrs 1-4 LoM
Reclamation and Closure $14 - $500
Initial Capital $242 -
All-In Costs $872 -
* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of Source: S&P Global, Market Intelligence. 201X All-in-Sustaining Costs*
context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications *Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence’s estimates and forecasts, and reported/actual data where available.
contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation. Mine Economics cover 65.28% of 2018 global recovered gold production11
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT: A RARE ASSET
From the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of
Mining companies: 10
An overall Investment Attractiveness Index is
constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral 9
Potential index, which rates regions based on their
(bubble size = combined production)
Australia 8
geologic attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index,
8
Number of +300kozpa mines
a composite index that measures the effects of 7
government policy on attitudes toward
exploration investment. 6
Size + Grade + USA 5
5 Canada 5
Tier 1 Mining
Jurisdiction 4
Argentina 3
3 Ghana 3 Russia 3
Suriname 2
Peru 2
There are only 18 mines producing over 2 TanzaniaBrazil
2 2 Papua New Guinea 2
South Africa 2
Mexico 2
300k ounces per year in Tier-1 mining 1
Burkina Faso 1
Dominican 1 Kyrgyzstan 1
jurisdictions (USA, Canada and Australia) DRC 1Indonesia 1
Egypt 1 Mali 1
Guinea 1
and only 5 are in the USA. 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)
Source: Company Reports and Fraser Institute Annual Survey of
Mining Companies (2017)12 VALUE OPPORTUNITIES
13
NPV Sensitivities (US$) US$1,200/oz Au(1) US$1,350/oz Au(2) US$1,500/oz Au(3) US$1,650/oz Au(4)
Project NPV @ 5% discount
(after tax)
$513M $832M $1,129M 1,414
(1) PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag, $4.00/lb Sb (3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb
(2) PFS Case B (Base Case): $1,350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb (4) PFS Case C: $1,650/oz Au, $27.50/oz Ag, $5.50/lb Sb
NPV (US$ millions) NPV (US$ millions)
$1,600
$3,500
$1,400 5% After-Tax 0% After-Tax 0% Pre-Tax
$3,000
$1,200
Substantial NPV $1,000
$2,500
& Leverage To $800
$2,000
Gold Price $600 $1,500
$400 $1,000
$200 $500
$0 $0
$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650 $1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650
Gold Price ($/oz) Gold Price (US$/oz)
IRR
Leverage to gold price
Gold Price (US$/oz)
$1,650 27.0%
$1,500 23.4%
$1,350 19.3%
(Based on Dec. 2014 PFS) $1,200 14.4%
* 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.14
FILLING THE VOID
Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer Landscape
700
Endeavour
600
The Midas Gold Advantage
Equinox
The Stibnite Gold Project is one of the
2019 Au Production (000oz Au Eq)
only large-scale gold projects in
500 Alamos
advanced development.
Torex Centamin
SSR
400
Midas Gold* Eldorado Alacer
Midas Gold is uniquely positioned to
300
Pretium
become the only US-based, >300k
Teranga
Perseus
oz/yr stand alone producer.
Dundee
200
Argonaut McEwen
TMAC
Roxgold
Calibre
100 Asanko
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
Mkt Cap (US$M)
*Midas Gold production assuming PFS LoM average annual
Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents.15
Strategic By-Products - ANTIMONY
Effectiveness of antimony flame retardant (left coverall)
Supply Risk
China dominates the world antimony supply and there is no domestic
antimony or tungsten production in the United States. The U.S. is
reliant on China for the majority of its antimony and tungsten and not
only is Chinese supply falling, but export restrictions from China have
been in place since 2009.
The potential exists for new U.S. legislation aimed at encouraging
domestic production of critical minerals.
World Antimony Production 2018 (USGS)
Average Antimony Price/quarter (US$/lb) Australia Bolivia
Other 2.5%
3.6% 1.9%
$7.00 Burma
Tajikistan 2.1%
$6.00 9.7%
Russia Antimony Uses 2018 (USGS)
$5.00
5.6%
$4.00
$3.00 China Flame
74.7% retardants Metal
$2.00 30.8% products
38.7%
$1.00
Non-metal
$0.00
products
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q4 2016
Q1 2017
Q2 2017
Q3 2017
Q4 2017
Q1 2018
Q2 2018
Q3 2018
Q4 2018
Q1 2019
Q2 2019
Q3 2019
Q4 2019
30.5%Lack of publicly listed intermediate producers* Developers 16
and quality development assets stem from a M&A Acquired by Acquired by New Gold,
Acquired by Kinross,
Agnico, C$513M Acquired by New Gold, Acquired by Osisko
decade of M&A and corporate activity by the C$570M
C$1.2B
C$3100M Gold Royalties,
C$338M
senior gold production companies seeking growth.
Acquired by Osisko, Acquired by Goldcorp,
C$308M C$1.5B Acquired by Argonaut,
Acquired by C$341M
Acquired by Rio Alto, Acquired by Goldcorp,
Oceanagold,
?
C$300M C$520M
C$856M
Acquired by IAMGold, Acquired by Newmont,
Acquired by Osisko,
C$585M C$2.3B
C$550M
Acquired by Goldcorp, Acquired by Yamana,
Acquired by Goldcorp, C$3.4B C$414M
C$526M
Advanced Gold Developers Acquired by Zijin,
C$1.4B
Acquired by Eldorado,
C$590M
Acquired by B2,
C$570M
? Joint Ventures
+
+
+ +
? Construction New Gold Producers
Commercial prod. in 2019 Guidance: 160koz 2019 Guidance: 430koz
Shrinking universe of
Q2 2020 - 220koz Mkt Cap: C$203M Mkt Cap: C$1,850M
Mkt Cap: C$446M Guyana Mexico
Yukon
quality gold developers Gold M&A Thematics
Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents.
*Companies and projects producing or with assets that could produce 200-500kozs pa17
PROCESSING
SIMPLIFIED FLOW SHEET (PFS2)
Jaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill
Robust gold & antimony High Sb Sulphides
(~14%)
recovery
Low Sb Sulphides
Antimony Antimony
Concentrate Flotation
(~72%)
PILOT TESTING COMPLETED1
• Higher gold (1-2%) and antimony (4-5%) recoveries
Tailings
Gold Flotation
(~14%)
Oxides
• Coarser primary grind (85 vs 75 microns), reducing
energy and grinding media costs
• Reduced reagent consumption in flotation, reducing Pressure
operating costs Oxidation
• On-site limestone for pH control, potentially
reducing lime consumption & operating costs
Gold Leach
• On-site limestone also increases environmental Gold Doré & Recovery
performance, improves downstream gold recovery
and reduces reagent consumption – potential for
both environmental and economic benefits Tailings Neutralization
1 See February 2018 news release for details 2 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.18
OPPORTUNITIES
Mineral resources2 not in PFS1,2 mine plan
YELLOW PINE HANGAR FLATS
889k oz Au @ 1.7g/t Au
in indicated mineral resources1,2 between
reserve pit and resource pit.
714k oz Au @1.5 g/t Au
in inferred mineral resources1,2 between
reserve pit and resource pit
1The 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 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. It is reasonably
expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.Yellow Pine Hangar Flats 19
World Class Mineral 0.15 Moz
1.18 g/t Au
0.38 Moz
2.53 g/t Au 0.34 Moz
Resources & Reserves * ** 0.76% Sb 0.25% Sb 1.37 g/t Au
0.12% Sb 1.08 Moz
2.5 Moz 1.71 g/t Au
1.99 g/t Au 0.20% Sb
0.10% Sb Indicated Inferred
Measured Indicated Inferred
Probable Reserves*: Probable Reserves*:
2.5 Moz @ 1.97 g/t Au 0.7 Moz @ 1.53 g/t Au
0.1% Sb 0.13% Sb
Totals for all deposits: PROBABLE RESERVES 4.6 Moz Au + 137 Mlbs Sb
included in MEASURED & INDICATED 5.6 Moz Au, 204Mlb Sb and INFERRED 1 Moz Au & 21 Mlbs Sb RESOURCE*
2018 Resource* vs 2014 PFS Resource** West End Historic Tailings
0.47 Moz
• On a total project basis - 2% increase in M&I gold grade and 1.27 g/t Au 0.01 Moz
3% increase in gold contained in the M&I mineral resources 1.23 g/t Au
• Yellow Pine - 6% increase in gold grade, 22% increase in 0.10 Moz
1.19 g/t Au
antimony grade & 31% increase in antimony contained in
the mineral resources Indicated Inferred
1.59 Moz
• West End deposit – 6% increase in gold contained in
1.25 g/t Au
indicated mineral resources and 49% increase in gold Indicated Inferred
contained in inferred mineral resources Probable Reserves*:
Probable Reserves*: 102,000 oz @ 1.17 g/t Au
* Mineral resources reported at $1,050/oz Au. Mineral reserves are from Dec. 15, 2014 PFS.
** See table and disclaimers at back of the presentation and Company news releases dated December 15, 1.3 Moz @ 1.22 g/t Au 0.16% Sb
2014 and February 15, 2018 for full details on the mineral resource and reserve estimates.20
Existing Deposits:
• Resource to reserve conversion
• Resource/reserve expansion immediately adjacent to pits
• In pit unclassified materials
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)
3,000
2,500
# of Deposits
2,000
1,500 Stibnite Gold Project
Exploration potential
1,000
500
-
Mineral Resources & Reserves, Prospects < 1M oz
(1) Source: Mineral Economics Group,
1-2M oz 2-5M oz 5-10M oz 10-30M >30M oz
RBC Capital Markets
Contained oz of Gold oz21
EXPLORATION UPSIDE
High-grade exploration targets
EXPLORATION POTENTIAL HIGH GRADE
AROUND THE PFS PITS UNDERGROUND PROSPECTS
NE Yellow Pine, including intercepts of: Garnet conceptual underground
YELLOW PINE
• 162ft @ 5.4g/t Au target with 95 holes completed:
• 45ft @ 5.9g/t Au • 1-2m ton range containing 250
– 500k oz Au at grades of 5 –
Hangar Flats below pit, including intercepts 8g/t Au*
of:
Upper Midnight is a high grade
• 125ft @ 3.1g/t Au, 1.45% Sb
prospect:
• 249ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.5% Sb
75ft @ 14.8g/t Au 35ft @ 11.3g/t Au
Hangar Flats in the old DMEA workings area, 100ft @ 6.7g/t Au 25ft @ 15.6g/t Au
which had intercepts of:
Scout is a high grade Sb
• 84ft @ 3.6g/t Au
prospect:
• 157ft @ 5.1g/t Au, 0.30% Sb
39ft @ 4.5 g/t Au & 1.7% Sb
294ft @ 1.6g/t Au, 2.76% Sb
WEST END
•
550 ft @ 0.8 g/t Au & 2.0% Sb
• 125ft @ 6.6g/t Au, 0.51% Sb 124 ft @ 2.4 g/t Au & 0.5% Sb
West End, both along strike and deeper,
including intercepts of: * The potential quantity and grade is
conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient
• Deeper: 127ft @ 2.9g/t Au & 230ft @ 2.3g/t Au exploration to define a mineral resource and it
• Along strike: 155ft @ 3.5g/t Au & 95ft @ 3.2g/t is uncertain if further exploration will result in
the target being delineated as a mineral
Au resource.22
INDUSTRY CAN REPAIR THE ENVIRONMENT
+
ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT
Invest $1 billion in Idaho Reprocess historical tailings
Provide well-paid jobs to Idahoans Restore fish passage
Grow economic opportunity with Repair historically impacted waterways
an estimated $43 million in direct Remediate areas contributing to water
annual payroll during operations & degradation
$86 million in local and state taxes* Rehabilitate habitat and natural
vegetation
Reuse materials on site
*Based on 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study23 HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT
24
Stibnite:
>$1 billion to be
invested in Idaho Restoring the site
An economically feasible, socially & environmentally
sound project that will finance restoration at an existing
~1,000 well paid jobs brownfields site.
• Re-establish fish passage in the upper
watershed
20-year project,
including construction, • Rehabilitate stream channels and create
operations and wetlands
reclamation • Remove and reprocess existing tailings
The PFS is intended to be read as a whole • Reuse existing spent ore & waste rock for
and sections should not be read or relied
upon out of context. The information in new construction
this presentation is subject to the
assumptions, exclusions and qualifications
contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory
• Rehabilitate historical impacts
Information” at the end of this
presentation.25
EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938
MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE
Stibnite’s Legacy
Brownfields site & restoration opportunity26 SOCIAL LICENSE
27
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Joint Memorial (Feb. 22/2018)
Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, with
overwhelming support, a joint memorial asking the
President of the United States, Idaho’s congressional
delegation, the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to take the
steps necessary to approve the Stibnite Gold Project in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
• 71 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors - included leadership in
the Republican and Democratic caucuses in both houses
• Resolution passed with 104 out of 105 legislators in favour
• Lawmakers believe Midas Gold’s commitment to mine in a way
“The Stibnite Gold Project will be an economic win for Idaho and that restores and protects the environment can serve as a global
provide a huge opportunity for many families in my district and template for the industry
across the state. The Project with be a $1 billion investment in • Recognized Midas Gold’s involvement in the community,
Idaho and bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to rural communities. commitment to building a mine that will help the community
These are jobs and this is an industry that people in Idaho and the environment and the dedication to being a partner with
welcome.” local communities proves Midas Gold has the right team to
- Terry Gestrin (R-Donnelly) undertake this Project28
PUBLIC SUPPORT
Midas Gold Idaho, Valley and Adams County Public Opinion Survey, October 2017
Favor or Oppose Which comes closest to your opinion?
Global trade is important to the Idaho should lead the way by
Restarting Operations at the Stibnite American economy and it is mining for precious metals here at
Mining District? okay to import critical products home, putting America First and
from countries like China. reducing our reliance on foreign
74.7% Favor 72.7% America First
20.7% Oppose 17.3% Global Trade29
SUSTAINABILITY 2019
Living our values, every day.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT. TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY.
SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE.30
GOAL: Commit Midas Gold now and into the future to regular
communication and coordination with local communities.
HOW: Community Advisory Council shall meet to get
Yellow Pine regular updates from Midas Gold and discuss topics of
Cascade interest.
Donnelly GOAL: Encourage communities to be knowledgeable of the proposed
project, anticipate needs and participate in the public process.
New Meadows
Riggins HOW: With no limits or expectations on content, ask that
each community submit a letter to the US Forest Service
Council regarding the Draft EIS.
Idaho County GOAL: Commit to supporting the needs of the community before,
Adams County during and after the project.
HOW: Stibnite Foundation will share the profits of the
Stibnite Gold Project at the discretion of the community
board of directors.
Community Agreements31 PERMITTING
32
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Stibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017) Stibnite
Federal Permits and Authorizations State Permits Local Permits
Joint Review
Process
USFS: IDEQ: • Planning and Zoning - Conditional
• NEPA EIS - Record of Decision on • Air Quality Use Permit
the Plan of Restoration and • Cyanidation • Central District Health Septic
Operations • 401 Water Quality Certification • County Building Permits
The Joint Review Process is a
• Road Use & Power Line • Waste Water Treatment • County Road Use Authorization coordinated process whereby
• Mineral Material • Solid Waste Permits Federal, State and Local
• Timber Sale Permit & Contract • Point of Compliance
USACE 404: Wetlands & Streams • Drinking Water
regulatory bodies work together
EPA: IDWR: to facilitate permitting using a
• NPDES - Water discharges • Water Rights single Environmental Impact
• SWPPP - Stormwater • Stream Channel Alteration
USFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA - • Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)
Statement (EIS).
Endangered Species Consultation SHPO: Cultural Clearance
FCC: Radio Communications IDL: Reclamation Plan Approval
BATFE: Explosives Handling
MSHA: Mine Identification Number,
Legal Identity Report, Ground Control
Plan
Final Plan of Restoration and Operations, Reclamation Plan
& Reclamation Bond33
PROJECT TIMELINE *
Permitting, feasibility & social license
100+ years 7 years 5 years ~3 years 12 + years
Mining by previous Exploration, Permitting Restoration & Operations, continued Reclamation
operators: resource/reserve construction restoration and concurrent and closure
1 million oz gold development & reclamation
88 million lbs antimony environmental studies 388,000 oz Au/year (yrs 1-4)
1 million lbs tungsten 337,000 oz Au/year (LOM)
Permitting milestones
2016 2017-2019 2020 2021
• PRO submitted to • EIS project initiation • Draft EIS to be published • Final EIS & Draft Record
regulators • ongoing environmental • Public comment period of Decision (“ROD”)
• First public comment studies on draft EIS • Final ROD
period (public scoping) • ongoing community & • Feasibility Study to be
government relations published
• feasibility study work
*indicative permitting schedule based on latest published government schedule34
PATH FORWARD
Regulatory Process Underway
Feasibility Study Underway
Environmental baseline data collected to support
EIS PFS and post-PFS optimization completed
Project extensively discussed with local Metallurgical optimization test work completed
communities and stakeholders Resource optimization completed
Plan of Restoration & Operations for mine B • Feasibility study pending
development filed, declared complete A
• NEPA process (EIS) underway
Corporate Strength
C Experienced management team in
place
Support of well-funded strategic
investors35 ADDITIONAL INFO
36
EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENT
We’ve done it before!
Darren Morgans
Michael Bogert
Stephen Quin
Alan Haslam
Laurel Sayer
President & CEO (MGC) President & CEO (MGII) General Counsel CFO VP Permitting
Ex-COO Capstone Mining, ex-CEO Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Lan Attorney, formerly with Parsons, Behle Ex-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and Former Director of Mining for Agrium,
Sherwood Copper, ex-EVP d Trusts, ex-director of natural & Latimer, former counselor to US PWC recently led NEPA permitting of
Miramar Mining resource issues & policy for Idaho Interior Secretary, former regional Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho
congressional delegation admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office
Mckinsey Lyon
John Meyer
Liz Monger
Kyle Fend
Chris Dail
VP Public Affairs VP Development Exploration Manager Manager IR & Corp. Sec. Operations Manager
Former Partner Gallatin Public Affairs, Ex-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude Ex-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott, Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals Ex-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco,
consultant for Monsanto and Agrium o Piedmont, USFS North Wind
n NEPA permitting37
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
Proven track record, local interests
MIDAS GOLD CORP.
Jaimie Donovan
Javier Schiffrin
Donald Young
Stephen Quin
Marcelo Kim
Brad Doores
Peter Nixon
Keith Allred
Director Director Director Chairman Lead Director Director & CEO Director Director
Exec. Director – National Former Head of Attorney, former VP & Partner, Paulson & Co Ex-Goepel, director of Ex-Capstone Mining, Partner, Paulson & Co Ex-KPMG, Placer Dome,
Institute for Civil Growth & Evaluations, Deputy General Dundee Precious Sherwood Copper, director of Dundee
Discourse, 2010 Barrick Counsel, Barrick Metals, ex-director of Miramar Mining & Precious Metals
Democratic candidate for Miramar Mining Northern Orion
Governor of Idaho
MIDAS GOLD IDAHO, INC. (Idaho operating subsidiary)
Scotty Davenport
Shauna Arnold
April Whitney
Anne Labelle
Laurel Sayer
Bob Barnes
Don Bailey
Chair & Director Director Director Director Director Director Director & CEO
Served four terms on Massage Therapist, Ex-COO Midas Gold, Founding member of Ex-VP Legal & Communications Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho
McCall City Council, serves on local boards Ex-VP Ops Capstone, Valley County Sustainability, Midas Director for Brundage Coalition of Land
two as mayor. for organizations ex-Pan American, Economic Gold, Ex- Capstone Mountain Resort. Trusts, ex-director of
focussed on the arts Goldcorp Development Council, Mining, Sherwood Resident of McCall, ID. natural resource issues
Resident of McCall, ID
and education. business owner in Copper, Miramar & policy for Idaho
Resident of Cascade, ID Valley County. Mining congressional
delegation.
Resident of McCall, ID
Resident of Boise, ID38
(
2018 MINERAL
in metric units, except oz;
RESOURCES at US$1,050/oz Au, see Feb. 15/18 news release)
Metric Tonnes Gold Grade Contained Gold Silver Grade Contained Silver Antimony Grade Contained Antimony
Classification
(000s) (g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (%) (000s lbs)
Measured:
Yellow Pine 4,623 2.53 377 3.91 581 0.25 25,821
Indicated:
Hangar Flats 19,697 1.71 1,080 4.80 3,041 0.20 86,962
West End 39,411 1.25 1,586 1.43 1,806 - -
Yellow Pine 38,598 1.99 2,469 2.31 2,863 0.10 81,406
Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648
Total M&I 104,912 1.66 5,610 2.53 8,536 0.09 203,838
Inferred:
Hangar Flats 7,654 1.37 336 3.95 971 0.12 19,885
West End 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446 - -
Yellow Pine 3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 0.76
Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563
Total Inferred 23,174 1.29 959 2.04 1,518 0.04 20,524
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. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated. 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.39
2014 PFS MINERAL RESERVES
(in imperial units)
Average Contained Grade Total Contained Metal
Deposit Tonnage
Gold Antimony Silver Gold Antimony Silver
Imperial Units (000s tons) (oz/ton) (%) (oz/ton) (000s oz) (000s lbs) (000s oz)
Yellow Pine 43,985 0.057 0.098 0.090 2,521 86,376 3,973
Hangar Flats 15,430 0.045 0.132 0.086 690 40,757 1,327
West End 35,650 0.035 0.000 0.040 1,265 - 1,410
Historic Tailings 3,001 0.034 0.165 0.084 102 9,903 252
Total Probable Mineral Reserve 98,066 0.047 0.070 0.071 4,579 137,037 6,962
Notes:
(1) All Mineral Reserves have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”).
(2) Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves: $1350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb.
(3) Block MUST be economic based on gold value only in order to be included as ore in Mineral Reserve.
(4) Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
*The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See
“Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.40
AFTER TAX CASH FLOW (PFS* base case)
At US$1,350/oz gold
$600 $1,600
$1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)
Cumulative After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions)
$450 $1,200
01 › $294 million/year Years 1-4
$300 $800 › $254 million/year Years 1-8
After Tax Cash Flow ($ millions)
$150 $400
Payback in 3.4 years
$0 $0
02 (after tax)
-$150 -$400
-$300 -$800
Undiscounted Cash Flow
-$450 Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow -$1,200
-$600 -$1,600
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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.41
CAPITAL & OPERATING COST
December 2014 PFS*
ESTIMATES
Capital Cost Estimate* *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.
Operating Cost Estimate*42
REGULATORY INFORMATION
Compliance with NI 43-101
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 technical report titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March
28, 2019 (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. It is reasonably expected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.
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 Technical Report was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. (“M3”) which was engaged by Midas Gold Corp.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. (“MGI”),
to evaluate potential options for the possible redevelopment of the Stibnite Gold Project based on information available up to the effective date of the Technical Report. 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. The Technical Report 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 p
04
erformance 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 measur
es should not be considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS.43
www.midasgoldcorp.com Tel: 778.724.4700
facebook.com/midasgoldidaho E-mail: info@midasgoldcorp.Com
Twitter.com/midasidaho Suite 890 – 999 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2
THANK YOU
MAX.TSX
www.supportstibnite.com MDRPF.OTCQXYou can also read
