STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT€¦ · 26/08/2020 · The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold...
Transcript of STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT€¦ · 26/08/2020 · The presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold...
11
STIBNITE GOLD
Idaho, USA MAX.TSXMDRPF.OTCQX
Restoring and Redeveloping the Largest, Highest Grade and
Lowest Cost Independent Gold Project in the U.S. Lower 48
PROJECT
August 2020
2
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
04Cautionary NoteThe presentation has been prepared by Midas Gold management and does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell these securities. Investors should always consult their investmentadvisors prior to making any investment decisions.
All references to “dollars” or “$” shall mean United States dollars unless otherwise specified.
Statements contained in this presentation that are not historical facts are "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively, "Forward-LookingInformation") within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-Looking Informationincludes, but is not limited to, disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or financial performance that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and coursesof 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 MidasGold 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 notplace 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 theCorporation to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the Forward-Looking Information. Such risks and other factorsinclude, among others, the industry-wide risks and project-specific risks identified in the technical report titled "Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, ValleyCounty, Idaho" dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March 28, 2019 (the "PFS") and summarized above; risks related to the availability of financing on commerciallyreasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds of such financing(s); operations and contractual obligations; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; futureprices of metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other naturalphenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under US federal and Idaho rules andregulations; impact of environmental remediation requirements and the terms of existing and potential consent decrees on the Corporation‘s planned exploration and developmentactivities on the Stibnite Gold Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation‘s dependence on one mineral project; thenature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation‘s lack of operating revenues; risks related to mineralproperties 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 standardspursuant 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 processinvolving 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 thereview 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. governmentshutdowns); 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 dependenceon 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 theCorporation 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 inForward-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 thatForward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readersshould 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 toForward-Looking Information contained in this presentation to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
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.
MIDAS GOLD: RESPONSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
4
HIG
HLI
GH
TS Low geopolitical risk › Idaho, USA
PFS Complete› 7th largestgold reserve in USA› 4th highest grade open pit in USA
Brownfieldssite
Low all-in sustaining costs
Strategic by-product› Antimony
Strong & supportiveinvestor base
Explorationpotential
Well-funded› US$38.9m
(June 30/20)
Sb
$
Stibnite Gold Project
5
Strong and supportive shareholder base
Shares Outstanding* 474.6 million
Convertible Notes (non-Paulson) 43.5 million
Options 20.1 million
Warrants 2.0 million
Fully Diluted 540.2 million
ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
* Assuming conversion of Paulson Convertible Notes as announced on August 26, 2020.
Issued Market Capitalization
(Based on share price of C$1.74)
C$826 million
Fully DilutedMarket Capitalization
(Based on share price of C$1.74)
C$940 million
ISSUED
FULLY DILUTED
D&O 1.7%
Issued & Outstanding*
D&O 1.0%
Fully Diluted
D&O2.4%
Employee options1.63%
6
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
7
Idaho: the right place
* Fraser institute Survey 2019
Stibnite Gold ProjectMidas Gold Au-Sb
Thompson Creek MineCenterra Gold Inc.
Phosphate DistrictItafos, Simplot, Bayer
Sunshine MineSunshine Silver Mines
Lucky Friday MineHecla Mining Company
Idaho Cobalt ProjectJervois
Coeur d’Alene
Cascade
BOISE
IDAHO
McCall
Beartrack MineRevival Gold
DeLamar ProjectIntegra Resources
NEVADA
UTAH
Goldstrike MineBarrick/Newmont
Twin CreeksBarrick/Newmont
Galena ComplexAmericas Silver
Turquoise RidgeBarrick/Newmont
CortezBarrick/Newmont
Iron CreekFirst Cobalt
New Jersey MiningGolden Chest
A mining friendly state – #5 Ranked Mining Jurisdiction in USA*
Well defined permitting process
Strong community and political support
Low geopolitical risk
Significant investments by senior mining companies: Barrick, Kinross, Yamana and Agnico Eagle
88
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY (PFS)*December 2014(at US$1,350 gold)
388,000
337,000
1,551,000
4,040,000
Years 1-4
LOM
Payable Gold Production(oz)
Average Annual Production Total Production
14.0
8.3
56.0
99.9
Years 1-4
LOM
Payable Antimony Production (millions lbs)
Average Annual Production Total Production
$970 $1,125
Capital Costs (US$ millions)
Initial LOM
* 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%.
$483 $568
$1,350
Cash Costs vs. Gold Price(US$/oz) (2)
Years 1-4LOMGold Price
AISC$506
AISC$616
IRR
22.0%
19.3%
pre-tax
after-tax**
NPV5% (US$)
$1,093M
$832M
pre-tax
after-tax**
9
STRATEGIC ANTIMONY BY-PRODUCT SUPPORTS PERMITTING
• US declared antimony a Critical Mineral
• US Military & Energy sectors largest end users
• Currently no domestic antimony production in US
• US heavily reliant on China for antimony
• China has placed export restrictions on antimony
• Potential exists for new US legislation aimed at encouraging domestic production of Critical Minerals, including antimony
• Midas Gold would produce antimony as a by-product of its US gold production1
• Estimated production* would equal ~30% of US annual demand
Other countries that produce less than 2% of global supply: Turkey, Australia, Burma, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Vietnam
39%
21%
40%
China63%
Russia19%
Tajikistan10%
World Antimony Production 2019 (USGS)
1 Based on the 2014 PFS, which 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.
Non-metal products (glass, rubber)
21%
Flame retardants40%
Metal Products (batteries, explosives, ammunition, nuclear
sheilding etc.)39%
Antimony Uses 2019 (USGS)
10
ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTSin the U.S. Lower 48
1.3
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.6
4.6
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Bald Mountain
Round Mountain
Haile
Marigold
Castle Mountain
Stibnite (Midas Gold)*
LARGEST INDEPENDENT1,2 RESERVES3
IN U.S. LOWER 48(2019 Year-End Proven & Probable, M Oz Gold)
Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence 1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont 2 Excludes Hycroft due to technical uncertainty regarding recoverability of reserves
* Based on the 2014 PFS which 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.
Stibnite (Midas Gold)*
0.5 0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
0.8 1.0 1.0
1.5 1.7
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
MarigoldCastle Mountain
Bald MountainSoledad Mountain
Round MountainWharf
Relief CanyonMount Hamilton
Gold BarGoldfield
MidasHaile
HIGHEST GRADE INDEPENDENT1 OPEN PITSIN U.S. LOWER 48
(2019 Year-End Proven & Probable Grade, g/t Gold)
Stibnite (Midas Gold)*
11
POISED TO BE LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 PRODUCING MINE IN LOWER 48LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 GOLD MINES IN U.S. LOWER 48
(2019 Production, 000s oz Gold)
1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or NewmontSource: S&P Global – Market Intelligence
* Based on the 2014 PFS which 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.
146
188
220
337
362
388
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Haile
Bald Mountain
Marigold
Midas (LoM)*
Round Mountain
Midas (Yrs 1-4)*
Stibnite LOM (Midas Gold)*
Stibnite Years 1-4 (Midas Gold)*
12
Cash Cost Summary* LOM Yrs 1-4
US$/oz US$/oz
Mining $222 $222
Processing $354 $312
G&A $77 $67
By-Product Credits -$85 -$118
Cash Cost Net By Products $568 $483Royalties, Refining & Transport $29 $31
Total Cash Costs $597 $513Sustaining Capital, Salvage & Property Tax $18 $12
All-In-Sustaining Costs $616 $526Reclamation and Closure $14 -
Initial Capital $242 -
All-In Costs $872 -
2020 Gold AISC Cost Curve
LOW ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTLowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2020 All-In Sustaining Costs*Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence’s estimates and forecasts. Mine economic forecasts cover 66.1% of 2020 global recovered gold production
* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
All-I
n Su
stai
ning
Cos
t (U
S$/o
z)
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Stibnite ProjectYrs 1-4 LoM
13
From the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining companies:An overall Investment Attractiveness Index is constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral Potential index, which rates regions based on their geologic attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index, a composite index that measures the effects of government policy on attitudes towardexploration investment.
There are only 18 mines producing over 300k ounces per year in Tier-1 mining jurisdictions (USA, Canada and Australia) and only 5 are in the USA.
STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT: A RARE ASSET
Brazil 2
Dominican 1
Mexico 2
Peru 2Suriname 2
Burkina Faso 1DRC 1
Egypt 1
Ghana 3
Guinea 1Mali 1
South Africa 2Tanzania 2
Argentina 3
Indonesia 1
Papua New Guinea 2
Kyrgyzstan 1
Russia 3
Australia 8
Canada 5
USA 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90N
umbe
r of +
300k
ozpa
min
es(b
ubbl
e siz
e =
com
bine
d pr
oduc
tion)
Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)
Size + Grade + Tier 1 Mining
Jurisdiction
Source: Company Reports and Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies (2017)
14
VALUE OPPORTUNITIES
1515
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Skeena(PEA)
Sabina(FS)
FirstMining(PEA)
Integra(PEA)
Almaden(FS)
Marathon(PFS)
Corvus(PEA)
Ascot (FS) Midas(PFS)
Osisko(PEA)
GoldStandard
(PFS)
Life
-of-M
ine
Prod
uctio
n (o
z Au)
Life
-of-M
ine
All-i
n Co
st (U
S$/o
z)
N. American Developers - Life-of-Mine All-in Sustaining Costs & Production
LoM Cash Cost/oz Initial Capex/oz Sustaining Capex/oz LoM Production (oz)
Gold Price: ~US$1,985/oz
Midas (PFS)
HIGH PRODUCTION AT COMPETITIVE AISC
SIZE + MARGIN
16
(Based on Dec. 2014 PFS)LEVERAGE to gold price
NPV Sensitivities (US$) 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 $1,414M
(1) PFS Case A: $1,200/oz Au, $20/oz Ag, $4.00/lb Sb(2) PFS Case B (Base Case): $1,350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb
* 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.
Substantial NPV & Leverage To
Gold Price
(3) PFS Case C: $1,500/oz Au, $25/oz Ag, $5.00/lb Sb(4) PFS Case C: $1,650/oz Au, $27.50/oz Ag, $5.50/lb Sb
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650
NPV (US$ millions)
5% After-Tax 0% After-Tax 0% Pre-Tax
Gold Price ($/oz)
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,200 $1,350 $1,500 $1,650
NPV (US$ millions)
Gold Price (US$/oz)
14.4%
19.3%
23.4%
27.0%
$1,200
$1,350
$1,500
$1,650
IRR
Gold
Pric
e (U
S$/o
z)
17
SIGNIFICANT UPSIDE WITH HIGHER GOLD PRICES
2 Midas Gold Market Cap as of August 26, 2020 assuming conversion of convertible notes
1 Based on the 2014 PFS, which is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
PFS Net Present Value1 ($ m)
MIDAS GOLD TRADES AT DEEP DISCOUNT TO PROJECT NET ASSET VALUE1
Gol
d Pr
ice
(US$
/oz)
$513
$832
$1,129
$1,414
$720
$1,041
$1,499
$1,929
$2,344
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
MAX Mkt Cap
$1,200
$1,350
$1,500
$1,650
NPV at 0% NPV at 5%
Current MAX Mkt Cap2 Only 51% of NPV1 (5%) at $1,650/oz Gold Price
18
LIFE CYCLE OF A JUNIOR MINERTypical value from discovery through production
TIME
VALU
E
EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION
Discovery
Speculation
Speculators leave
Permitting &Technical Studies
Project Financing& Construction
Production Re-Rating
HIGH RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | LOW POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL
19
The Stibnite Gold Project is one of the only large-scale gold projects in advanced development.
Midas Gold is uniquely positioned to become the only US-based, >300k oz/yr stand alone producer.
The Midas Gold Advantage
*Midas Gold production assuming PFS LoM average annual and conversion of Paulson Convertible Notes (as announced on August25, 2020)Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents (August 2020).
Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer LandscapeFILLING THE VOID
Midas Gold*
Alamos
Roxgold
PretiumCoeur
Saracen
Argonaut
Teranga
Eldorado
Regis
McEwen
OceanaGold
Equinox
HeclaPerseus
Torex
Dundee
Centamin
Galiano
St. Barbara
Silver Lake
Calibre100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500
2020
Au
Prod
uctio
n (0
00oz
Au
Eq)
Mkt Cap (US$M)
2020
Shrinking universe of quality gold developers GOLD M&A THEMATICS
Lack of publicly listed intermediate producers* and quality development assets stem from a decade of M&A and corporate activity by the senior gold production companies seeking growth.
Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents.*Companies and projects producing or with assets that could produce 200-500kozs pa
Advanced Gold Developers
New Gold Producers
Acquired by Agnico, C$570M
Acquired by New Gold, C$513M
Acquired by Osisko, C$308M
Acquired by B2, C$570M
Acquired by New Gold, C$3100M
Acquired by Rio Alto, C$300M
Acquired by Oceanagold, C$856M Acquired by Goldcorp,
C$520M
Acquired by IAMGold, C$585M
Acquired by Kinross, C$1.2B
Acquired by Goldcorp, C$1.5B Acquired by Argonaut,
C$341M
Acquired by Osisko, C$550M Acquired by Newmont,
C$2.3BAcquired by Goldcorp,
C$3.4B
Acquired by Yamana, C$414M
DevelopersM&A
20
Commercial prod. inQ2 2020 - 220kozMkt Cap: C$800M
Yukon
Joint Ventures
+ ++
+
Acquired by OsiskoGold Royalties,
C$338M
Acquired by Zijin, C$1.4B
Future production 350kozMkt Cap: C$2,152M
Ecuador
Pending acquisition by Shandong C$328M
Acquired by Goldcorp, C$526M
Pending acquisition by Zijin, C$290m
Blackwater Project acquired by Artemis
C$210m
2019 Guidance: 430kozMkt Cap: C$1,850M
Mexico
Acquired by Eldorado, C$590M
Pending acquisition by Shandong C$210M
21
Robust gold & antimony recovery
PROCESSINGJaw Crusher SAG Mill Ball Mill
Antimony Flotation
Gold Flotation
Pressure Oxidation
Gold Leach& Recovery
Antimony Concentrate
Gold Doré
Oxi
des
(~14
%)
High Sb Sulphides (~14%)
Tailings
Low
Sb
Sulp
hide
s(~
72%
)
SIMPLIFIED FLOW SHEET (PFS2)
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.
Tailings
PILOT TESTING COMPLETED1
1 See February 2018 news release for details
• Higher gold (1-2%) and antimony (4-5%) recoveries• Coarser primary grind (85 vs 75 microns), reducing
energy and grinding media costs• Reduced reagent consumption in flotation, reducing
operating costs• On-site limestone for pH control, potentially
reducing lime consumption & operating costs• On-site limestone also increases environmental
performance, improves downstream gold recovery and reduces reagent consumption – potential for both environmental and economic benefits Neutralization
22
OPPORTUNITIESMineral resources2 not in PFS1,2 mine plan
1 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.
YELLOW PINE HANGAR FLATS
2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economicviability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, miningloss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resourcesthat are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations appliedto them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. It is reasonablyexpected that the majority of Inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to Indicated.
WEST END
2323
WORLD CLASS MINERAL RESOURCES*
& RESERVES**
2018 Resource* vs 2014 PFS Resource**• On a total project basis - 2% increase in M&I gold grade and
3% increase in gold contained in the M&I mineral resources• Yellow Pine - 6% increase in gold grade, 22% increase in
antimony grade & 31% increase in antimony contained in the mineral resources
• West End deposit – 6% increase in gold contained in indicated mineral resources and 49% increase in gold contained in inferred mineral resources
Yellow Pine
Measured Indicated Inferred
Probable Reserves*:2.5 Moz @ 1.97 g/t Au
0.1% Sb
0.38 Moz 2.53 g/t Au
0.25% Sb
2.5 Moz 1.99 g/t Au
0.10% Sb
0.15 Moz 1.18 g/t Au
0.76% Sb
Hangar Flats
Indicated Inferred
Probable Reserves*:0.7 Moz @ 1.53 g/t Au
0.13% Sb
1.08 Moz 1.71 g/t Au
0.20% Sb
0.34 Moz 1.37 g/t Au
0.12% Sb
West End
Indicated Inferred
Probable Reserves*:1.3 Moz @ 1.22 g/t Au
1.59 Moz 1.25 g/t Au
0.47 Moz 1.27 g/t Au
Historic Tailings
Indicated Inferred
Probable Reserves*:102,000 oz @ 1.17 g/t Au
0.16% Sb
0.10 Moz 1.19 g/t Au
0.01 Moz 1.23 g/t Au
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*
* 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, 2014 and February 15, 2018 for full details on the mineral resource and reserve estimates.
23
24EXTENSIVE EXPLORATION UPSIDE1POTENTIAL TO EXPAND KNOWN DEPOSITS & DISCOVER NEW ONES
1 Some of the prospects are conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource.
35ft @ 11.3g/t Au25ft @ 15.6g/t Au
Existing Deposits:
• Northeast of Yellow Pine deposit
• Below Hangar Flats pit & Old DMEA workings area
• West End along strike and at depth
Priority Prospects:
• High Grade Targets
› Garnet, Scout, Upper Midnight
• Bulk Tonnage Targets
› Cinnamid-Ridgetop, Saddle-Fern, Rabbit
• Undefined Airborne Targets
› Mule, Salt & Pepper, Blow-out
25
Invest $1 billion in IdahoProvide well-paid jobs to Idahoans Grow economic opportunity withan estimated $43 million in directannual payroll during operations & $86 million in local and state taxes*
ECONOMY
INDUSTRY CAN REPAIR THE ENVIRONMENT
+Reprocess historical tailingsRestore fish passageRepair historically impacted waterwaysRemediate areas contributing to waterdegradationRehabilitate habitat and naturalvegetationReuse materials on site
ENVIRONMENT
*Based on 2014 Pre-Feasibility Study
26
HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT
27
STIBNITE:RESTORING THE SITEAn economically feasible, socially & environmentally sound project 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.
>$1 billion to be invested in Idaho
~1,000 well paid jobs
20-year project, including construction,
operations and reclamation
28
Brownfields site & restoration opportunity
STIBNITE’S LEGACY
EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938
MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE
29
SOCIAL LICENSE
30
› 71 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors› Included leadership in the Republican and
Democratic caucuses in both houses› Vote: 104 out of 105 legislators in favour
Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, withoverwhelming support, a joint memorial asking thePresident of the United States, Idaho’s congressionaldelegation, the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary ofthe Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to take thesteps necessary to approve the Stibnite Gold Project in atimely and cost-effective manner.
GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC SUPPORTJoint Memorial (Feb. 22/2018)
“The Stibnite Gold Project will be an economic win for Idaho and
provide a huge opportunity for many families in my district and
across the state. The Project with be a $1 billion investment in
Idaho and bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to rural
communities. These are jobs and this is an industry that people
in Idaho welcome.”
Terry Gestrin (Idaho State Senator)
Public Support (Midas Gold Idaho, Valley and Adams County Public Opinion Survey, October 2017)
Favor or OpposeRestarting Operations at the Stibnite Mining District?
74.7%20.7%
Favor
Oppose
www.stibniteadvisorycouncil.com
The Stibnite Advisory Council brings together communities across central Idaho to discuss the challenges and
opportunities presented by the Stibnite Gold Project.
Village of Yellow Pine + Cascade + Donnelly + New Meadows + Riggins + Council + Adams County + Idaho County
32
SUSTAINABILITY 2019Living our values, every day.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
TRANSPARENCY. ACCOUNTABILITY. SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE.
1,820 $228KGIVINGTREES PLANTED
In 2019, we continued supporting programs that matter in the community.
30 TOURSGetting the public to site is a great way to share our vision to Restore the Site. In 2019 we took over 412
people to site.
717 HOURSCLASSROOM TIME
Spending time in the classroom is an investment in our future. Our team teaches STEM education around the region.
In total, we have planted 57,616 trees to stabilize the environment at Stibnite.
33
PERMITTING
34
STIBNITEJOINT REVIEW PROCESSThe Joint Review Process is a coordinated process whereby Federal, State and Local regulatory bodies work together to facilitate permitting using a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
USFS:• NEPA EIS - Record of Decision on
the Plan of Restoration and Operations
• Road Use & Power Line• Mineral Material• Timber Sale Permit & Contract USACE 404: Wetlands & StreamsEPA: • NPDES - Water discharges• SWPPP - StormwaterUSFWS/NOAA: Section 7 ESA -Endangered Species ConsultationFCC: Radio CommunicationsBATFE: Explosives Handling MSHA: Mine Identification Number, Legal Identity Report, Ground Control Plan
Federal Permits and Authorizations
IDEQ:• Air Quality• Cyanidation• 401 Water Quality Certification• Waste Water Treatment• Solid Waste Permits• Point of Compliance• Drinking WaterIDWR:• Water Rights• Stream Channel Alteration• Dam Safety (Tailings Dam)SHPO: Cultural ClearanceIDL: Reclamation Plan Approval
State Permits
• Planning and Zoning - Conditional Use Permit
• Central District Health Septic • County Building Permits• County Road Use Authorization
Local Permits
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) andStibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017)
Final Plan of Restoration and Operations, Reclamation Plan& Reclamation Bond
35
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTAugust 14, 2020
36
Being stewards of the environment is good business
Minimize our impact
Restore the site
Improve water quality
Reconnect fish to spawning grounds
Safety first
Economic opportunity
OUR APPROACHGOING IN
September 2016Plan of
Restoration and Operations
(PRO)
August 2020Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)
OUR GOALSACHIEVED
Natural resource restoration via private investment
Cleans up legacy impacts Repairs damage from a
century of mining Restores salmon migration into
upper EFSFSR Safety prioritized Over 1,000 well-paid jobs for
Idahoans Local contracting, supplies and
services emphasized
PLAN OF RESTORATION & OPERATIONS (PRO)
37
375 Years of Study PLAN OF RESTORATION AND OPERATIONS
11 Local, State and Federal
agencies
4+ YEARS+
80 reports with 27,000 pages of scientific data and analysis
+150 additional requests for
information+
841 Community Meetings
Modified PLAN OF RESTORATION
AND OPERATIONS (Mod PRO)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)
NEPA: STUDY, REFINEMENT, REVIEW Making the Best Project for Idaho
38
Mine Feature Alternative 1 (PRO) ALTERNATIVE 2 (Mod-PRO) ALTERNATIVE 3 - EFSFSR TSF ALTERNATIVE 4: YP Route Alt 5: No Action GM stockpiles Per PRO No change Changes related to TSF relocations No change
Mining Three pits (YPP, WEP, HFP) No change No change No change
Legacy tailings Process legacy tailings No change No processing of legacy tailings No change
DRSFs Four DRSFs No WE DRSF, partial HFP backfill HF DRSF to EFSFSR TSF HFP partial backfill, reduced DRSF
Ore processing Per PRO On site lime generation No change No change
TSF PRO TSF No change EFSFSR TSF No change
Exploration Per PRO No change No change No change
Infrastructure Per PRO No change Relocation housing, roads No change
SW Mgmt Per PRO Mitigation measures Changes assoc. w/EFSFSR TSF Interim Meadow Ck. retained
GW Mgmt Dewatering per PRO No change No change No change
Water use Per PRO No change No change No change
Waste treatment Per PRO No change Facility relocate per EFSFSR TSF No change
Borrow sources Onsite/Burntlog borrow sites Reduced to 8 from 17 No SODA processing for borrow No change
Mine access Burntlog Route Burntlog Route with 8A reroute Burntlog w/Blowout Ck. reroute Yellow Pine Access Route
Public access Per PRO Through-site non-winter access Burntlog to Meadow Ck. access Through-site non-winter access
Powerlines Per PRO Minor reroutes Mods per EFSFSR TSF relocations No change
Comm towers Per PRO No change No change Helicopter installs
Offsite logistics Per PRO No change No change No change
Offsite maint Landmark Move to Burntlog borrow site No change W of Landmark
DEIS - FIVE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
39
MG Modified Proposed Action
Modifications to the PRO to address concerns that have surfaced through continued project analysis.
1
2
3
4
7
81
65
ALTERNATIVE 2Modified PRO
Mod-PRO submitted May 20191. DRSFs – reduce footprint, eliminate, backfill pits2. On-site lime generation – less traffic3. TSF – diversions, liner design4. Surface water management5. Offsite maintenance facility6. Mine access – mod to Burntlog (8a)7. Public access – through site access8. Powerline – route modifications
40
DEIS: WHAT IT SAYS1
2. Removing legacy materials will improve water quality Removing legacy materials and managing water provides long-term reduction in metal loading in ground and surface water Removing legacy tailings and waste lowers concentrations of antimony and arsenic in the EFSFSR Removing legacy tailings and waste improves water quality in Meadow Creek valley
3. Mitigation and Restoration will address impacts Proposed mitigation will provide 1:1 replacement of wetlands acres Mitigation plan offers a net gain of 346.5 wetland functional units represents a 40% increase Restoration plans will provide a net gain of 21,941 stream functional units, a 23% increase
4. Concurrent Restoration reduces risks Concurrent mitigation and restoration reduce the uncertainty in the duration of wetland and riparian resource losses
1. Removing historical barriers to fish migration will assist the population Long-term access to historically blocked critical habitat improves productivity Free movement and access to habitat can improve genetic diversity Increased access to feeding and refuge areas in critical habitat can improve overall productivity
1 Quotes from Stibnite Gold Project Deaft EIS published by USFS Aug.14/20 and can be found in Chapter 4, Appendix D and CMP.
41
Mining by previous operators:
1 million oz gold88 million lbs antimony1 million lbs tungsten
100+ years
Exploration, resource/reserve development &
environmental studies
7 years
PROJECT TIMELINE*
Permitting, feasibility & social license
Permitting
~5 years
Operations, continued restoration and concurrent
reclamation388,000 oz Au/year (yrs 1-4)337,000 oz Au/year (LOM)
12 + years
Restoration & construction
~3 years
Reclamationand closure
*indicative permitting schedule based on latest published government schedule
Permitting milestones
2016 2020 2021• PRO submitted to
regulators
• First public comment period (public scoping)
• EIS project initiation
• ongoing environmental studies
• ongoing community & government relations
• feasibility study work
• Draft EIS published – August 14, 2020
• Public comment period on draft EIS
• Feasibility Study to be published
• Final EIS & Draft Record of Decision (“ROD”)
• Final ROD
2017-2020
42
PERMITTING – NEXT STEPS
Publish Final ROD2021
NOA forDEIS In Federal
Register
DEIS CommentPeriod
EIS Project Initiation & Public
ScopingQ2/Q3 2017
PrepareDraft EIS
RODDependent
Permits
Engineering & Design
Ancillary Permits (CN, Dam Safety, Water Rights, NPDES, 404, Air PTC, WWTP, ROW, etc.)
NOA for FEIS & Draft ROD in Federal Register
Public Objection Period,Objection Resolution
Pre-work & Planning
Q1/Q2 2017
Alternatives & Environmental
Analysis
Submittal of PRO9/2016
ProjectApproved
Construction
Administrative Approval12/2016
Respond to Comments on DEIS & Prepare
Final EIS & Draft ROD
43
MIDAS GOLD: A UNIQUE AMERICAN GOLD PLAY• Largest Undeveloped Independent1 Gold Reserve2 in the Lower 48 of U.S.
• Slated to Become Largest Independently-Owned Gold Producer2 in the Lower 48
• Highest Grade2 Undeveloped Open Pit Deposit in Lower 48
• Lowest Quartile Projected Costs2
• Current Market Cap3 51% of Project NPV(5%) at $1,650/oz Gold Price2
• Receipt of Permits expected to Unlock material Shareholder Value
• Environmental Restoration funded through Mine Redevelopment
1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont 2
2 Based on the 2014 PFS which 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. Comparison excludes Hycroft due to technical uncertainty regarding recoverability of reserves3 Based on August 26, 2020 share princes; Market capitalizations based on fully diluted shares assuming conversion of Convertible Notes
44
Go to www.RestoreTheSite.com
45
ADDITIONAL INFO
46
EXPERIENCED MANAGEMENTWe’ve done it before!
President & CEO (MGC)Ex-COO Capstone Mining, ex-CEO
Sherwood Copper, ex-EVPMiramar Mining
Step
hen
Qui
n
Laur
el S
ayer
Mic
hael
Bog
ert
Darr
en M
orga
ns
Alan
Has
lam
Mck
inse
y Ly
on
John
Mey
er
Chris
Dai
l
Liz M
onge
r
Kyle
Fen
d
President & CEO (MGII)Former Ex.Dir. of Idaho Coalition of Lan
d Trusts, ex-director of naturalresource issues & policy for Idaho
congressional delegation
General CounselAttorney, formerly with Parsons, Behle
& Latimer, former counselor to US Interior Secretary, former regional
admin. of the US EPA Region 10 office
CFOEx-Terrane, Placer Dome, MIM and
PWC
VP PermittingFormer Director of Mining for Agrium,
recently led NEPA permitting of Rasmussen Valley Mine, Idaho
VP External Affairs Former Partner Gallatin Public Affairs, consultant for Monsanto and Agrium o
n NEPA permitting
VP DevelopmentEx-Kinross, Aurelian, Barrick, Syncrude
Exploration ManagerEx-Cominco, Asarco, Kennecott,
Piedmont, USFS
Manager IR & Corp. Sec.Ex-Rainy River and Rubicon Minerals
Operations ManagerEx-Freeport-McMoRan, Cameco,
North Wind
47
BOARDS OF DIRECTORSProven track record, local interests
Jaim
ie D
onov
an
Keith
Allr
ed
DirectorExec. Director – National
Institute for Civil Discourse, 2010
Democratic candidate for Governor of Idaho
DirectorFormer Head of
Growth & Evaluations, Barrick
Brad
Doo
res
DirectorAttorney, former VP &
Deputy General Counsel, Barrick
Jon
Goo
de
DirectorCPA, Manager Special
Projects – Itafos, ex-Agrium
Lead DirectorEx-Goepel, director of
Dundee Precious Metals, ex-director of
Miramar Mining
Pete
r Nix
on
Mar
celo
Kim
ChairmanPartner, Paulson & Co.
Chris
Pap
agia
nis
DirectorPartner, Paulson & Co.
Step
hen
Qui
n
Director & CEOEx-Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar Mining &
Northern Orion
MIDAS GOLD CORP.
Chair & DirectorServed four terms on McCall City Council,
two as mayor.
Resident of McCall, ID
Don
Baile
y
Bob
Barn
es
Shau
na A
rnol
d
DirectorMassage Therapist,
serves on local boards for organizations
focussed on the artsand education.
Resident of Cascade, ID
DirectorEx-COO Midas Gold, Ex-VP Ops Capstone,
ex-Pan American, Goldcorp
Scot
ty D
aven
port
DirectorFounding member of
Valley County Economic
Development Council, business owner in
Valley County.
Resident of McCall, IDAn
ne L
abel
le
DirectorEx-VP Legal &
Sustainability, Midas Gold, Ex- Capstone Mining, Sherwood Copper, Miramar
Mining
April
Whi
tney
DirectorCommunications
Director for Brundage Mountain Resort.
Resident of McCall, ID.
Laur
el S
ayer
Director & CEOFormer Ex.Dir. of Idaho
Coalition of Land Trusts, ex-director of
natural resource issues & policy for Idaho
congressional delegation.
Resident of Boise, ID
MIDAS GOLD IDAHO, INC. (Idaho operating subsidiary)
48
2018 MINERAL RESOURCES(in metric units, except oz; at US$1,050/oz Au, see Feb. 15/18 news release)
Classification Metric Tonnes(000s)
Gold Grade(g/t)
Contained Gold(000s oz)
Silver Grade(g/t)
Contained Silver(000s oz)
Antimony Grade(%)
Contained Antimony(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 86,962West 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 81,406Historic 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 19,885West End 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446 - -Yellow Pine 3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 0.76Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563
Total Inferred 23,174 1.29 959 2.04 1,518 0.04 20,524Notes:(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 economicconsiderations 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 toreflect 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.
49
2014 PFS MINERAL RESERVES(in imperial units)
Deposit TonnageAverage Contained Grade Total Contained Metal
Gold Antimony Silver Gold Antimony Silver
Imperial Units (000s tons) (oz/ton) (%) (oz/ton) (000s oz) (000s lbs) (000s oz)
Yellow Pine 43,985 0.057 0.098 0.090 2,521 86,376 3,973
Hangar Flats 15,430 0.045 0.132 0.086 690 40,757 1,327
West End 35,650 0.035 0.000 0.040 1,265 - 1,410
Historic Tailings 3,001 0.034 0.165 0.084 102 9,903 252
Total Probable Mineral Reserve 98,066 0.047 0.070 0.071 4,579 137,037 6,962
Notes:(1) All Mineral Reserves have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum (“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”).(2) Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves: $1350/oz Au, $22.50/oz Ag, $4.50/lb Sb.(3) Block MUST be economic based on gold value only in order to be included as ore in Mineral Reserve.(4) Numbers may not add exactly due to rounding.
*The PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.
50
› $294 million/year Years 1-4› $254 million/year Years 1-8
$1.5 billion in cash flow (after tax)
(after tax)
Payback in 3.4 years
01
02
AFTER TAX CASH FLOW (PFS* base case)At US$1,350/oz gold
-$1,600
-$1,200
-$800
-$400
$0
$400
$800
$1,200
$1,600
-$600
-$450
-$300
-$150
$0
$150
$300
$450
$600
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Cum
ulat
ive
Afte
r Tax
Cas
h Fl
ow ($
mill
ions
)
Afte
r Tax
Cas
h Fl
ow ($
mill
ions
)
Year of Operation
Undiscounted Cash Flow
Undiscounted Cumulative Cash Flow
*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.
51
CAPITAL & OPERATING COST ESTIMATESDecember 2014 PFS*
Capital Cost Estimate*
Operating 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.
52
REGULATORY INFORMATIONCompliance with NI 43-101
04NON-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 toassess how the Project ranks against its peer projects and to assess the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the contemplated mining operations. These performance measuresdo 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.
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 itssubsidiaries, “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., QualifiedPerson 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, theyshould read the technical report titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Prefeasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 8, 2014 and amended March28, 2019 (available on SEDAR or at www.midasgoldcorp.com) in its entirety (the “Technical Report”), including all qualifications, assumptions and exclusions that relate to theinformation 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 beread 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 lossand dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied tothem 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 itis 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 orderfor 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 itsactivities. 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. GivensPursley LLP (land tenure), Kirkham Geosystems Ltd. (mineral resources), Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd. (metallurgy), Pieterse Consulting, Inc. (autoclave), Independent Mining ConsultantsInc. (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 theTechnical 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.
53
THANK YOU
www.supportstibnite.comMAX.TSX
MDRPF.OTCQX
www.midasgoldcorp.comfacebook.com/midasgoldidahoTwitter.com/midasidaho
Tel: 778.724.4700E-mail: [email protected]
Suite 890 – 999 West Hastings StreetVancouver, BC CANADA V6C 2W2