STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT - Idaho, USA MAX.TSX MDRPF.OTCQX - Restoring and Redeveloping the Largest, Highest Grade and Lowest Cost Independent Gold ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
1
Restoring and Redeveloping the
Largest, Highest Grade and
Lowest Cost Independent Gold
Project in the U.S. Lower 48
STIBNITE GOLD
PROJECT
Idaho, USA MAX.TSX
MDRPF.OTCQX
August 20, 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.
MIDAS GOLD: RESPONSIBLE REDEVELOPMENT
3
& ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
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
Brownfields Sb
HIGHLIGHTS
site
Strategic by-product
Low geopolitical › Antimony
risk › Idaho, USA
PFS Complete Exploration
› 7th largest potential
gold reserve in USA
› 4th highest grade
open pit in USA Stibnite Gold Project
Well-funded
› US$45.4m
Strong & supportive (Mar.31/20)
investor base
Low all-in
sustaining costs
$
5
ESTIMATED SHAREHOLDINGS
Shares Outstanding (at Aug.14/20) 273.2 million ISSUED
Issued & Outstanding
Convertible Notes* 243.2 million
Subtotal 516.4 million
Options 21.1 million
Warrants 2.0 million
Fully Diluted 539.5 million
* 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 term, Company
can redeem after four years if share price is double the conversion price.
D&O 1.0%
Issued Issued + Conv. Notes FULLY DILUTED
Market Capitalization Market Capitalization Fully Diluted
(Based on share price of C$1.90) (Based on share price of C$1.90)
C$519 million C$981 million
CAPITAL STRUCTURE
Strong and supportive shareholder base D&O 1.7%
6 STIBNITE GOLD PROJECT
7
IDAHO
Lucky Friday Mine
Coeur d’Alene Hecla Mining Company
New Jersey Mining
Golden Chest
Galena Complex
Sunshine Mine Americas Silver
Sunshine Silver Mines
Stibnite Gold Project
Midas Gold Au-Sb
Idaho: the right place Beartrack Mine
Revival Gold
McCall Idaho Cobalt Project
Jervois
A mining friendly state – #5 Ranked Mining Jurisdiction in USA* Cascade
Iron Creek
Thompson Creek Mine First Cobalt
Centerra Gold Inc.
Well defined permitting process BOISE
DeLamar Project
Integra Resources
Phosphate District
Itafos, Simplot, Bayer
Strong community and political support
NEVADA
Twin Creeks
Low geopolitical risk Barrick/Newmont
Turquoise Ridge Goldstrike Mine
Barrick/Newmont Barrick/Newmont
Significant investments by senior mining companies: Barrick,
Kinross, Yamana and Agnico Eagle Cortez
Barrick/Newmont UTAH
* Fraser institute Survey 2019
8
Payable Gold Production Payable Antimony Production
(oz) (millions lbs)
Average Annual Production Total Production Average Annual Production Total Production
388,000 14.0
Years 1-4 Years 1-4
PRELIMINARY
1,551,000 56.0
FEASIBILITY
337,000 8.3 99.9
LOM LOM
4,040,000
STUDY (PFS)*
Capital Costs (US$ 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
STRATEGIC ANTIMONY BY-PRODUCT SUPPORTS PERMITTING
World Antimony Production 2019 (USGS)
• US declared antimony a Critical Mineral Tajikistan
10%
• US Military & Energy sectors largest end users
Russia
19%
• Currently no domestic antimony production in US
China
• US heavily reliant on China for antimony 63%
• China has placed export restrictions on antimony
Other countries that produce less than 2% of global supply: Turkey, Australia, Burma, Ecuador,
• Potential exists for new US legislation aimed at Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Vietnam
encouraging domestic production of Critical Minerals, Antimony Uses 2019 (USGS)
including antimony Non-metal products
(glass, rubber)
• Midas Gold would produce antimony as a by-product Metal Products
21%
21%
of its US gold production1 (batteries, explosives,
ammunition, nuclear 39%
sheilding etc.)
39%
• Estimated production* would equal ~30% of US 40%
annual demand
Flame retardants
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 40%
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.
10
ONE OF THE LARGEST, BEST GRADE GOLD PROJECTS
in the U.S. Lower 48
LARGEST INDEPENDENT1,2 RESERVES3 HIGHEST GRADE INDEPENDENT1 OPEN PITS
IN U.S. LOWER 48 IN U.S. LOWER 48
(2019 Year-End Proven & Probable, M Oz Gold) (2019 Year-End Proven & Probable Grade, g/t Gold)
Haile 1.7
Stibnite (Midas
Stibnite (MidasGold)*
Gold)* 4.6
Stibnite (MidasMidas
Gold)* 1.5
Goldfield 1.0
Castle Mountain 3.6
Gold Bar 1.0
Mount Hamilton 0.8
Marigold 3.1
Relief Canyon 0.8
Wharf 0.7
Haile 3.0
Round Mountain 0.7
Soledad Mountain 0.7
Round Mountain 2.7
Bald Mountain 0.6
Castle Mountain 0.6
Bald Mountain 1.3
Marigold 0.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
* 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.
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 reserves11
POISED TO BE LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 PRODUCING MINE IN LOWER 48
LARGEST INDEPENDENT1 GOLD MINES IN U.S. LOWER 48
(2019 Production, 000s oz Gold)
Stibnite Years 1-4Midas (YrsGold)*
(Midas 1-4)* 388
Round Mountain 362
Midas (LoM)*
Stibnite LOM (Midas Gold)* 337
Marigold 220
Bald Mountain 188
Haile 146
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
* 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.
Source: S&P Global – Market Intelligence 1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont12
LOW ALL-IN SUSTAINING COST
Lowest Quartile Project, based on 2014 PFS*
2020 Gold AISC Cost Curve
Cash Cost Summary* LOM Yrs 1-4
US$/oz US$/oz
Mining $222 $222 $3,000
Processing $354 $312
All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/oz)
G&A $77 $67 $2,500
By-Product Credits -$85 -$118
Cash Cost Net By Products $568 $483 $2,000
Royalties, Refining & Transport $29 $31
Total Cash Costs $597 $513 $1,500
Sustaining Capital, Salvage &
$18 $12 $1,000
Property Tax Stibnite Project
All-In-Sustaining Costs $616 $526 Yrs 1-4 LoM
$500
Reclamation and Closure $14 -
Initial Capital $242 -
All-In Costs $872 -
Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2020 All-In Sustaining Costs
* The 2014 PFS is intended to be read as a whole and sections should not be read or relied upon out of *Based on S&P Global Market Intelligence’s estimates and forecasts. Mine economic forecasts cover 66.1% of 2020
context. The information in this presentation is subject to the assumptions, exclusions and qualifications global recovered gold production
contained in the PFS. See “Regulatory Information” at the end of this presentation.13
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)
8 Australia 8
geologic attractiveness, and the Policy Perception Index,
Number of +300kozpa mines
a composite index that measures the effects of 7
government policy on attitudes toward
exploration investment. Size + Grade 6
USA 5
+ Tier 1 5 Canada 5
Mining 4
Jurisdiction 3 Ghana 3
Argentina 3
Russia 3
There are only 18 mines producing Suriname 2
Peru 2
over 300k ounces per year in Tier-1 2 TanzaniaBrazil
Mexico 2
2 2 Papua New Guinea 2
South Africa 2
mining jurisdictions (USA, Canada
Burkina Faso 1 Kyrgyzstan 1
1 Dominican 1
DRC 1Indonesia 1
Egypt 1 Mali 1
and Australia) and only 5 are in the 0 Guinea 1
USA. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fraser Institute Index (Overall Investment Attractiveness)
80 90
Source: Company Reports and Fraser Institute Annual Survey of
Mining Companies (2017)14 VALUE OPPORTUNITIES
HIGH PRODUCTION AT COMPETITIVE AISC
15
N. American Developers - Life-of-Mine All-in Sustaining Costs & Production
$2,000 4,500,000
Gold Price: ~US$1,985/oz
$1,800 4,000,000
$1,600
3,500,000
Life-of-Mine All-in Cost (US$/oz)
Life-of-Mine Production (oz Au)
$1,400
SIZE + 3,000,000
$1,200 MARGIN
2,500,000
$1,000
2,000,000
$800
1,500,000
$600
1,000,000
$400
$200 500,000
$- -
Skeena Sabina First Integra Almaden Marathon Corvus Ascot (FS) Midas
Midas Osisko Gold
(PEA) (FS) Mining (PEA) (FS) (PFS) (PEA) (PFS)
(PFS) (PEA) Standard
(PEA) (PFS)
LoM Cash Cost/oz Initial Capex/oz Sustaining Capex/oz LoM Production (oz)16
NPV Sensitivities (US$) 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 (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.17
LIFE CYCLE OF A JUNIOR MINER
Typical value from discovery through production
EXPLORATION DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION
HIGH RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | LOW POTENTIAL MEDIUM RISK | HIGH POTENTIAL
Production Re-Rating
VALUE
Speculation
Speculators leave
Project Financing
& Construction
Permitting &
Technical Studies
Discovery
TIME18
FILLING THE VOID
Midas Gold vs. Gold Producer Landscape
600
550 Equinox
Eldorado
500 Centamin The Midas Gold Advantage
Saracen
2020 Au Production (000oz Au Eq)
450 The Stibnite Gold Project is
Torex
Alamos one of the only large-scale
400 Teranga
St. Barbara Coeur gold projects in advanced
350 Midas Gold* development.
Pretium
OceanaGold Regis
300 Dundee
Silver Lake Midas Gold is uniquely
250
Perseus Hecla
positioned to become the only
200 Argonaut US-based, >300k oz/yr stand
McEwen alone producer.
150 Galiano
Calibre Roxgold
100
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500
Mkt Cap (US$M)
*Midas Gold production assuming PFS LoM average annual and Convertible Notes Converted
Source: Company Reports and Public Disclosure Documents (August 2020).19
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 Study20 HISTORIC MINING DISTRICT
21
STIBNITE:
>$1 billion to be
invested in Idaho RESTORING THE SITE
An economically feasible, socially &
environmentally sound project that will finance
~1,000 well paid jobs restoration at an existing 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.22
EXAMPLE: FISH PASSAGE BLOCKED SINCE 1938
MIDAS GOLD WOULD RESTORE FISH PASSAGE
STIBNITE’S LEGACY
Brownfields site & restoration opportunity23 PERMITTING
24
STIBNITE
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
Stibnite Joint Review Process (Sept. 2017)
Federal Permits and Authorizations State Permits Local Permits JOINT REVIEW
USFS:
• NEPA EIS - Record of Decision on
IDEQ:
• Air Quality
• Planning and Zoning - Conditional
Use Permit
PROCESS
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 Bond25
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
August 14, 202026
PLAN OF RESTORATION & OPERATIONS (PRO)
OUR APPROACH OUR GOALS
GOING IN ACHIEVED
Being stewards of the Natural resource restoration
via private investment
environment is good
September 2016 August 2020 Cleans up legacy impacts
business
Plan of Draft Repairs damage from a
Minimize our impact century of mining
Restoration and Environmental
Restore the site Operations Impact Statement Restores salmon migration into
upper EFSFSR
Improve water quality (PRO) (DEIS)
Safety prioritized
Reconnect fish to
Over 1,000 well-paid jobs for
spawning grounds Idahoans
Safety first Local contracting, supplies and
Economic opportunity services emphasized27
NEPA: STUDY, REFINEMENT, REVIEW
Making the Best Project for Idaho
PLAN OF RESTORATION
5 Years of Study 27
AND OPERATIONS
4+ YEARS
+
80 reports with 27,000 pages of
scientific data and analysis 11 Local, State
+ and Federal
150 additional requests for agencies
information
+
841 Community Meetings
Modified
PLAN OF RESTORATION Draft Environmental
AND OPERATIONS Impact Statement
(Mod PRO) (DEIS)28
DEIS - FIVE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
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 Landmark29
ALTERNATIVE 2 7
Modified PRO 1
MG Modified Modifications to the PRO to address
Proposed Action concerns that have surfaced through
continued project analysis.
2
Mod-PRO submitted May 2019
1
1. DRSFs – reduce footprint, eliminate, backfill pits 8
2. On-site lime generation – less traffic
3. TSF – diversions, liner design
3
4. Surface water management
5. Offsite maintenance facility
6. Mine access – mod to Burntlog (8a) 4
7. Public access – through site access
8. Powerline – route modifications
5
630
DEIS: WHAT IT SAYS 1
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
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 Quotes from Stibnite Gold Project Deaft EIS published by USFS Aug.14/20 and can be found in Chapter 4, Appendix D and CMP.31
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 2017-2020 2020 2021
• PRO submitted to • EIS project initiation • Draft EIS published – August • Final EIS & Draft Record
regulators • ongoing environmental 14, 2020 of Decision (“ROD”)
• First public comment studies • Public comment period on • Final ROD
period (public scoping) • ongoing community & draft EIS
government relations • Feasibility Study to be
• feasibility study work published
*indicative permitting schedule based on latest published government schedule32
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 57% 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
2Based 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 reserves
3 Based on August 17, 2020 share princes; Market capitalizations based on fully diluted share count as of the latest filing date (including convertible notes as converted into shares).
1 Independent defined as not owned by Barrick or Newmont 233 Go to www.RestoreTheSite.com
34 SOCIAL LICENSE
35
GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC SUPPORT
Joint Memorial (Feb. 22/2018)
Idaho’s House of Representatives and Senate passed, with
“The Stibnite Gold Project will be an economic win for Idaho and
overwhelming support, a joint memorial asking the
provide a huge opportunity for many families in my district and President of the United States, Idaho’s congressional
across the state. The Project with be a $1 billion investment in delegation, the Administrator of the EPA, the Secretary of
the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to take the
Idaho and bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to rural
steps necessary to approve the Stibnite Gold Project in a
communities. These are jobs and this is an industry that people timely and cost-effective manner.
in Idaho welcome.” › 71 lawmakers signed on as co-sponsors
Terry Gestrin (Idaho State Senator)
› Included leadership in the Republican and
Democratic caucuses in both houses
› Vote: 104 out of 105 legislators in favour
Public Support (Midas Gold Idaho, Valley and Adams County Public Opinion Survey, October 2017)
Favor or Oppose 74.7% Favor
Restarting Operations at the Stibnite Mining District?
20.7% OpposeThe Stibnite Advisory Council brings
together communities across central
Idaho to discuss the challenges and
opportunities presented by the
Stibnite Gold Project.
www.stibniteadvisorycouncil.com
Village of Yellow Pine + Cascade + Donnelly + New Meadows + Riggins + Council + Adams County + Idaho County37
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.38
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
