MIDAS GOLD COMPLETES MINERAL RESOURCE UPDATE WITH A DOUBLING OF GOLD IN INDICATED CATEGORY
Overall Contained Gold at Golden Meadows increases 22%; First Antimony & Silver Estimates
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA - Midas Gold Corp. (MAX:TSX) today announced the last of three planned independent NI43-101 mineral resource estimates for its Golden Meadows Project in Idaho, completing the process of updating its mineral resource estimates to incorporate second half of 2011 and early 2012 drill results. These updated estimates resulted in an overall 22% increase in contained gold at Golden Meadows in just six months of drilling. Including the previously announced updates for the West End and Yellow Pine deposits, gold contained in indicated mineral resources has increased 103% (to 4.23 million oz at a grade of 1.68 g/t gold) from the June 2011 estimate. A total of 59% of the contained gold at Golden Meadows is now in the indicated category, while 41% (2.89 million oz at a grade of 1.60g/t gold) is in the inferred category. Furthermore, antimony and silver have been added to the Yellow Pine and Hangar Flats mineral resource estimates, with 108.5 million pounds of contained antimony in the indicated category and an additional 92.8 million pounds of contained antimony inferred within the overall mineral resource. While each element is reported below for each of the three deposits, as constrained in the base case Whittle(r) pits, higher grade antimony and silver subdomains are also reported separately within 0.1% antimony shells, as detailed on the following page, which subdomains host all of the modeled antimony and have an average grade of 0.49% antimony. Antimony was not modeled outside the 0.1% antimony shell.
Mineral Resource Estimate(1) - All Three Deposits comprising the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho
Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012
| Mineral Resource Category | Tonnes (000s) | Gold Grade (g/t) | Contained Gold (000s oz) | Silver Grade(5) (g/t) | Contained Silver (000s oz) | Antimony Grade(4)(5) (%) | Contained Antimony (000s lbs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Pit Oxide(2) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 10,573 | 0.90 | 305 | 0.00 | - | 0.00% | 122 |
| Inferred | 2,201 | 0.97 | 68 | 0.00 | - | 0.00% | 178 |
| Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 67,653 | 1.80 | 3,925 | 0.60 | 1,312 | 0.07% | 108,385 |
| Inferred | 53,917 | 1.63 | 2,822 | 0.93 | 1,603 | 0.08% | 92,606 |
| Total Open Pit Oxide + Sulphide(2)(3) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 78,226 | 1.68 | 4,229 | 0.52 | 1,312 | 0.06% | 108,507 |
| Inferred | 56,117 | 1.60 | 2,890 | 0.89 | 1,603 | 0.07% | 92,784 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
(4) Where antimony grades are shown as “0.00” there is antimony present but it rounds to 0.00.
(5) Antimony and silver were not estimated for the West End deposit due to a lack of sufficient assays, and is averaged into the totals at an assumed zero grade.
Antimony Subdomains(1) Mineral Resource, Yellow Pine & Hangar Flats Deposits, Golden Meadows Project, Idaho
Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012
| Mineral Resource Category | Tonnes (000s) | Gold Grade (g/t) | Contained Gold (000s oz) | Silver Grade (g/t) | Contained Silver (000s oz) | Antimony Grade (%) | Contained Antimony (000s lbs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Pit Sulphide(2) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 9,999 | 2.31 | 743 | 3.15 | 1,012 | 0.49% | 108,507 |
| Inferred | 8,639 | 2.08 | 576 | 5.04 | 1,400 | 0.49% | 92,784 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below). The antimony subdomain is further limited to discrete zones of mineralization with grades that exceed 0.1% Sb.
“The updated mineral resource for the three deposits within our Golden Meadows Project demonstrates excellent progress over the past year,” said Stephen Quin, President and CEO of Midas Gold Corp. “While the indicated gold mineral resource has more than doubled, we have also added significant value to the project by including antimony as a potential by-product and increased the overall contained gold by 22%, with significant gains at West End and Yellow Pine, partially offset by reductions at Hangar Flats. The addition of an antimony resource will become more important as we move into our economic studies, since the higher grade antimony mineralization is concentrated near surface and can be extracted early in a mine plan,” he said. “Furthermore, we have improved the confidence in our resource models as Midas Gold’s drill data provides better control on the mineralization and replaces a significant amount of historic data. Step out drilling, completed subsequent to the resource cut-off date, continues to intersect significant new mineralization outside of our current mineral resource at Yellow Pine and Hangar Flats, while drilling has recently commenced shortly at the West End deposit, which remains open to expansion in several directions.”
Hangar Flats Mineral Resource Update
The base case mineral resource estimate for the Hangar Flats deposit was prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. and is summarized herein. Sensitivity according to gold cut-off grade is summarized below. The economically driven pit shell that limits the mineral resource was based entirely on gold value, with antimony and silver reporting within the resource-limiting pit but not defining it. Within the resource-limiting pit, antimony and silver grades are reported without any cut-off. Any mineralization lying outside the resource-limiting pit is not reported as mineral resources.
Since the date of this mineral resource estimate, additional drilling has been completed at Hangar Flats, and is continuing, that is extending the mineralization to the west and east beside and below the mineral resources reported herein, while Midas Gold plans to test possible extensions to the south of the current mineral resource later in 2012, subject to permitting, in areas where prior drilling has indicated potential for extensions to mineralization and is supported by airborne EM geophysical anomalies.
Mineral Resource Statement (1), Hangar Flats Deposit, Golden Meadows Project, Idaho
Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012
| Mineral Resource Category | Tonnes (000s) | Gold Grade (g/t) | Contained Gold (000s oz) | Silver Grade (g/t) | Contained Silver (000s oz) | Antimony Grade (%) | Contained Antimony (000s lbs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Pit Oxide(2) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 750 | 0.73 | 18 | - | - | - | - |
| Inferred | 589 | 0.82 | 15 | - | - | - | - |
| Open Pit Sulphide(3) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 16,440 | 1.73 | 914 | 1.37 | 725 | 0.12 | 44,217 |
| Inferred | 7,828 | 1.50 | 378 | 0.09 | 22 | 0.02 | 3,106 |
| Total Open Pit Oxide + Sulphide(2)(3) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 17,189 | 1.69 | 932 | 1.31 | 725 | 0.12 | 44,217 |
| Inferred | 8,416 | 1.45 | 393 | 0.08 | 22 | 0.02 | 3,106 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
Higher Grade Antimony Area at Hangar Flats
As noted above, within the larger envelope of gold mineralization, there are zones significantly enriched in antimony and silver relative to the overall mineral resource. These zones, defined by a plus 0.1% antimony shell, lie entirely within the pit-limited mineral resource and are reported separately below to illustrate the higher grades of antimony and silver within the overall mineral resource.
Mineral Resource Antimony Subdomain(1), Hangar Flats Deposit, Golden Meadows Project, Idaho
Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 13, 2012
| Mineral Resource Category | Tonnes (000s) | Gold Grade (g/t) | Contained Gold (000s oz) | Silver Grade (g/t) | Contained Silver (000s oz) | Antimony Grade (%) | Contained Antimony (000s lbs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open Pit Sulphide(2) Mineral Resources | |||||||
| Indicated | 3,475 | 2.16 | 242 | 4.31 | 482 | 0.58 | 44,217 |
| Inferred | 339 | 1.33 | 14 | 0.91 | 10 | 0.42 | 3,106 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below). The antimony subdomain is further limited to discrete zones of mineralization with grades that exceed 0.1% Sb.
Hangar Flats Mineral Resource Estimate at different Cut-off Grades
The sensitivity of the Hangar Flats deposit mineral resource estimate to different cut-off grades is tabulated below.
Sensitivity of Mineral Resource Statement (1) for the Hangar Flats Deposit to Cut-off Grade
| Category (Base case highlighted) | Cut-off Grade (g/t Gold) | Tonnes (000s) | Gold Grade (g/t) | Contained Gold (000s oz) | Silver Grade (g/t) | Contained Silver (000s oz) | Antimony Grade (%) | Contained Antimony (000s lbs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxide Indicated | 0.65 | 363 | 0.97 | 11 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 |
| 0.55 | 491 | 0.87 | 14 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.42 | 750 | 0.73 | 18 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.35 | 926 | 0.67 | 20 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.25 | 1,201 | 0.58 | 22 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| Sulphide Indicated | 0.95 | 13,962 | 1.89 | 846 | 1.55 | 694 | 0.14 | 41,555 |
| 0.85 | 15,233 | 1.80 | 883 | 1.44 | 703 | 0.13 | 42,314 | |
| 0.75 | 16,440 | 1.73 | 914 | 1.37 | 725 | 0.12 | 44,217 | |
| 0.65 | 17,829 | 1.65 | 945 | 1.29 | 737 | 0.11 | 44,810 | |
| 0.55 | 19,241 | 1.57 | 972 | 1.20 | 740 | 0.11 | 44,965 | |
| Oxide Inferred | 0.65 | 286 | 1.09 | 10 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 |
| 0.55 | 462 | 0.91 | 13 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.42 | 589 | 0.82 | 15 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.35 | 685 | 0.75 | 17 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 0.25 | 942 | 0.63 | 19 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| Sulphide Inferred | 0.95 | 5,698 | 1.75 | 320 | 0.12 | 21 | 0.02 | 2,638 |
| 0.85 | 6,717 | 1.62 | 350 | 0.10 | 22 | 0.02 | 2,814 | |
| 0.75 | 7,828 | 1.50 | 378 | 0.09 | 22 | 0.02 | 3,106 | |
| 0.65 | 9,125 | 1.39 | 407 | 0.08 | 23 | 0.02 | 3,420 | |
| 0.55 | 10,318 | 1.30 | 430 | 0.08 | 25 | 0.02 | 3,412 | |
| Total Indicated | 0.65 Oxide, 0.95 Sulphide | 14,325 | 1.86 | 857 | 1.51 | 694 | 0.13 | 41,555 |
| 0.55 Oxide, 0.85 Sulphide | 15,723 | 1.77 | 897 | 1.39 | 703 | 0.12 | 42,314 | |
| 0.42 Oxide, 0.75 Sulphide | 17,189 | 1.69 | 932 | 1.31 | 725 | 0.12 | 44,217 | |
| 0.35 Oxide, 0.65 Sulphide | 18,755 | 1.60 | 965 | 1.22 | 737 | 0.11 | 44,810 | |
| 0.25 Oxide, 0.55 Sulphide | 20,442 | 1.51 | 994 | 1.13 | 740 | 0.10 | 44,965 | |
| Total Inferred | 0.65 Oxide, 0.95 Sulphide | 5,984 | 1.72 | 330 | 0.11 | 21 | 0.02 | 2,638 |
| 0.55 Oxide, 0.85 Sulphide | 7,179 | 1.57 | 363 | 0.09 | 22 | 0.02 | 2,814 | |
| 0.42 Oxide, 0.75 Sulphide | 8,416 | 1.45 | 393 | 0.08 | 22 | 0.02 | 3,106 | |
| 0.35 Oxide, 0.65 Sulphide | 9,811 | 1.34 | 424 | 0.07 | 23 | 0.02 | 3,420 | |
| 0.25 Oxide, 0.55 Sulphide | 11,260 | 1.24 | 449 | 0.07 | 25 | 0.01 | 3,412 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details below).
(4) Where antimony grades are shown as “0.00” there is antimony present but it rounds to 0.00.
Hangar Flats Mineral Resource Estimation
Mineral resource estimates for Hangar Flats were completed using Gemcom GEMS® software by David Rowe, C.P.G., of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. and incorporates the results of 49 holes drilled in 2011 and 2012 that were not utilized in the prior mineral resource estimate.
In reviewing the total drilling database, SRK and Midas Gold have eliminated all underground channel samples and any historic Bradley era holes that were not supported by Midas drilling, which resulted in a drop in total contained ounces of gold, especially from the inferred category. The underground channel samples were deemed inferior to the historic drilling, which holes were primarily drilled in the 1940’s using typical ‘A’ gauge core bits, with sludge and core both assayed. While the channel samples may have identified mineralization, the quality of the samples and the lack of reliable mapping in reference to the samples preclude confident estimation into immediately adjacent areas. Additional drilling would be required to determine whether this data could be used (if verified) or replaced in future mineral resource estimates with new data. The veracity of the remaining historic drilling, which was completed in the 1940s through the 1990s, was confirmed through a rigorous data verification protocol. This included reviewing original drill logs, assay certificates and survey information, comparison of data from different drilling campaigns within the same area, and comparison to the Midas Gold holes. Blocks of 25m and 50m that were well informed (6 samples minimum) by both historic data and recent drilling were compared to validate the older data. Where no bias existed, and where good correlations dominated, the older data was used in grade estimation.
Three dimensional structural domains were constructed based on the orientation of the structural controls for gold deposition, and the gold deposit extents were limited within a gold shell constructed at a 0.25 g/t Au fire assay (“AuFA”) threshold. The gold shell was also limited at the boundaries of the deposit so as not to extend more than 60 meters beyond any mineralized drill hole intercept. Antimony and silver shells were also constructed to drill holes, with 0.1% Sb and 5 g/t Ag cut-offs. Although spatially related, the antimony and silver mineralization is characterized by different structural controls than the gold mineralization.
Original gold, silver, and antimony assay values from drilling were capped, according to cumulative frequency plots of assays within resource limiting shells. Gold capping of individual assays resulted in a loss of 4% total metal. For silver and antimony, capping resulted in metal losses of 10% and 12% respectively. Composite samples were then created at three meter intervals, and were restricted to the limits of the 0.25g/t Au shell.
Ordinary kriging was used to interpolate grades within each of the three structural domains, and the total gold, silver, and antimony block model estimates consisted of two successively larger passes. The first pass used a maximum search radius of 40, 50, and 45 meters for each gold, silver, and antimony respectively, which represents one half (1/2) of the maximum range of the variography, and was subdivided into octants for gold only. The second pass was set to estimate the remaining blocks within the gold shell. Total gold, silver, and antimony assay values were estimated within blocks measuring 15x15x6 meters.
Once the estimation process was completed, the previously mined areas were removed, based on available surveys of the existing underground workings, the limits of which have been locally confirmed by holes drilled through voids and timbers.
Mineral resources are classified in the Indicated category for all blocks estimated by at least four composite samples from a minimum of two drill holes, and a minimum of three octants from the first interpolation pass which searched out to 40 metres or one half (1/2) of the maximum range of sample grade continuity defined by the variography. Final broad areas of indicated blocks were outlined by constructing a classification envelope designed to encompass zones predominantly flagged by the first search pass. This process allows review of the geologic control/confidence on the deposit, and expands certain areas but excludes others from Indicated category. All remaining blocks within the gold shell are classified as Inferred.
Cut-off Grade Selection
The cut-off grade selected for the base case resource-limiting pit was estimated on the basis of gold only, and used the following assumptions:
| June 2012 Estimate | June 2011 Estimate | |
|---|---|---|
| Gold Price (US$/oz) | $1,400.00 | $1,200.00 |
| Refining & transport (US$/oz recovered) | $7.00 | $5.00 |
| Mining cost (US$/tonne moved) | $1.50 | $1.50 |
| Sulphide processing cost (US$/tonne processed) | $23.00 | $20.00 |
| Oxide processing cost (US$/tonne processed) | $10.00 | $5.00 |
| G&A cost (US$/tonne processed) | $3.00 | $2.00 |
| Sulphide recovery | 90% | 95% |
| Oxide recovery | 80% | 85% |
| NSR Royalty | 0% | 5% |
| Maximum Pit slopes | 45 degrees | 45 degrees |
| Discount rate | 7% | 0% |
This led to a calculated cut-off grade of 0.36g/t gold for oxides and 0.65g/t for sulphides. In order to provide a level of conservatism, Midas Gold requested SRK to add a 15% contingency factor, increasing the base case cut-off grades to 0.42g/t gold for oxides and 0.75g/t for sulphides. This cut-off grade and the assumptions above were used by Jim Robertson, P.Eng., of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc., to float conceptual pits using Whittle(r) that limit the mineral resources so that only mineral resources above these cut-offs and within the resource-limiting pit are reported; mineralization falling outside the resource-limiting pit is not reported, no matter what the grade. The strip ratio for this resource-limiting pit dropped from last year’s 7.31:1 to a current 7.1:1 (tonnes of waste to tonnes of mineral resource within the pit).
It should be noted that the assumptions used to derive the cut-off grades and define the resource-limiting pits are estimated so as to meet the NI43-101 requirement for mineral resource estimates to demonstrate “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” and the cut-off grades to be used in the upcoming preliminary economic assessment may vary from those used to limit the mineral resources reported herein, as the inputs to that study are determined. No inference is implied in the changes to the cut-off grade assumptions from the prior mineral resource estimates as to what will be used in the upcoming preliminary economic assessment, as those assumptions remain to be determined.
Updated Technical Report
The details of all three mineral resource estimates will be provided in a NI43-101 Technical Report to be filed in conjunction with the completion of a preliminary economic assessment due in Q3/12.
Compliance with National Instrument 43-101
David Rowe, CPG, of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. is the qualified person, as defined in National Instrument 43-101, responsible for the mineral resource estimates for the Hangar Flats deposit as reported herein. He has read and approved the relevant technical portions of this news release related to the mineral resource estimates for which he is responsible.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Mineral resource estimates do not account for mineability, selectivity, mining loss and dilution. These mineral resource estimates include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is also no certainty that these inferred mineral resources will be converted to the measured and indicated categories through further drilling, or into mineral reserves, once economic considerations are applied.
The mineral resources at Golden Meadows are contained within areas that have seen historic disturbance resulting from prior mining activities. In order for Midas to advance its interests at Golden Meadows, the project will be subject to a number of Federal, State and local laws and regulations and will require permit to conduct its activities. However, Midas is not aware of any environmental, permitting, legal or other reasons that would prevent it from advancing the project.
Illustrations
To view the locations of current drill holes and the old and new pit boundaries for the Hangar Flat deposit, please click here.
Quality Assurance
The technical information in this news release has been prepared in accordance with Canadian regulatory requirements set out in National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”) and reviewed and approved by Stephen P. Quin, P. Geo., President and CEO of Midas Gold Corp., and a Qualified Person. The resource estimation for the gold deposits at Golden Meadows was completed by David Rowe, C.P.G., and Wayne Barnett, Pr.Sci. Nat., of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc. under the supervision of Guy Dishaw, P. Geo, of SRK Consulting (Canada), Inc., and was reviewed by Paul Jensen, C.P.G., Qualified Person and Midas Gold’s Senior Geologist for the Golden Meadows Project.
About Midas Gold and the Golden Meadows Project
Midas Gold Corp., through its wholly owned subsidiaries Midas Gold Inc. and Idaho Gold Resources, LLC, is focused on the exploration and, if warranted, development of the Golden Meadows Project in the Stibnite-Yellow Pine district of central Idaho. The principal gold deposits identified to date within the Golden Meadows Project are the Hangar Flats, West End and Yellow Pine deposits, all of which are associated with important structural corridors. Independent mineral resource estimates are detailed in a consolidated technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on Mineral Resources, Golden Meadows Project, Valley County, Idaho” dated June 6, 2011 (the “Technical Report”) is available on Midas Gold’s website at www.midasgoldcorp.com or under Midas Gold’s profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com. A new technical report covering all three updated mineral resources will be filed on SEDAR in conjunction with the completion of a preliminary economic assessment, scheduled for completion in Q3/12.
Forward-Looking Statements
Statements contained in this news release 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; the timing and costs of future exploration activities on the Corporation’s properties; success of exploration activities; permitting time lines and requirements, requirements for additional capital, requirements for additional water rights and the potential effect of proposed notices of environmental conditions relating to mineral claims; planned exploration and development of properties and the results thereof; planned expenditures and budgets and the execution thereof. In certain cases, Forward-Looking Information can be identified by the use of words and phrases such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, “potential” “confirm” or “does not anticipate”, “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking statements to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that may be encountered if the Golden Meadows Project is developed. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Corporation has applied several material assumptions, including, but not limited to, that any additional financing needed will be available on reasonable terms; the exchange rates for the U.S. and Canadian currencies in 2012 will be consistent with the Corporation’s expectations; that the current exploration and other objectives concerning the Golden Meadows Project can be achieved and that its other corporate activities will proceed as expected; that the current price and demand for gold will be sustained or will improve; that general business and economic conditions will not change in a materially adverse manner and that all necessary governmental approvals for the planned exploration on the Golden Meadows Project will be obtained in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; the continuity of the price of gold and other metals, economic and political conditions and operations. 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, risks related to the availability of financing on commercially reasonable terms and the expected use of proceeds; operations and contractual obligations; changes in exploration programs based upon results of exploration; changes in estimated mineral reserves or mineral resources; future prices of metals; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; environmental risks, including environmental matters under U.S. 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 on the Golden Meadows Project; certainty of mineral title; community relations; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing; fluctuations in mineral prices; the Corporation’s dependence on one mineral project; the nature of mineral exploration and mining and the uncertain commercial viability of certain mineral deposits; the Corporation’s lack of operating revenues; governmental regulations and the ability to obtain necessary licences and permits; risks related to mineral properties being subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims and other defects in title; currency fluctuations; changes in environmental laws and regulations and changes in the application of standards pursuant to existing laws and regulations which may increase costs of doing business and restrict operations; risks related to dependence on key personnel; and estimates used in financial statements proving to be incorrect; as well as those factors discussed in the Corporation’s public disclosure record. Although the Corporation has attempted to identify important factors that could affect the Corporation and may cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in Forward-Looking Information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that Forward-Looking Information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on Forward-Looking Information.
Except as required by law, the Corporation does not assume any obligation to release publicly any revisions to Forward-Looking Information contained in this news release to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Mineral Resource Estimate(1) - All Three Deposits comprising the Golden Meadows Project, Idaho
Prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., June 25, 2012
| Hangar Flats | West End (5) | Yellow Pine | All Deposits | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxides(2) (@ 0.42g/t Au cut-off) | ||||
| Indicated | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 750 | 8,251 | 1,572 | 10,573 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 0.73 | 0.83 | 1.30 | 0.90 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | - | - | - | |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | - | 0.00% | 0.00% | |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 18 | 221 | 66 | 305 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | - | - | - | |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | - | 122 | 122 | |
| Inferred | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 589 | 1,185 | 427 | 2,201 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 0.82 | 0.63 | 2.12 | 0.97 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | - | - | - | |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | - | 0.02% | 0.00% | |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 15 | 24 | 29 | 68 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | - | - | - | |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | - | 178 | 178 | |
| Sulphides(3) (@ 0.75g/t Au cut-off) | ||||
| Indicated | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 16,440 | 25,750 | 25,463 | 67,653 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 1.73 | 1.52 | 2.14 | 1.80 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | 1.37 | 0.72 | 0.60 | |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | 0.12% | 0.11% | 0.07% | |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 914 | 1,262 | 1,749 | 3,925 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | 725 | 587 | 1,312 | |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | 44,217 | 64,168 | 108,385 | |
| Inferred | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 7,828 | 14,076 | 32,013 | 53,917 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 1.50 | 1.30 | 1.80 | 1.63 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | 0.09 | 1.54 | 0.93 | |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | 0.02% | 0.13% | 0.08% | |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 378 | 588 | 1,856 | 2,822 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | 22 | 1,581 | 1,603 | |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | 3,106 | 89,500 | 92,606 | |
| Oxides+ Sulphides (2)(3) | ||||
| Indicated | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 17,189 | 34,001 | 27,036 | 78,226 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 1.69 | 1.36 | 2.09 | 1.68 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | 1.31 | - | 0.68 | 0.52 |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | 0.12% | - | 0.11% | 0.06% |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 932 | 1,483 | 1,814 | 4,229 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | 725 | - | 587 | 1,312 |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | 44,217 | - | 64,290 | 108,507 |
| Inferred | ||||
| Tonnes(000s) | 8,416 | 15,261 | 32,440 | 56,117 |
| GoldGrade (g/t) | 1.45 | 1.25 | 1.81 | 1.60 |
| SilverGrade (g/t) | 0.08 | - | 1.52 | 0.89 |
| AntimonyGrade (%) (4) | 0.02% | - | 0.13% | 0.07% |
| ContainedGold (000s oz) | 393 | 612 | 1,885 | 2,890 |
| ContainedSilver (000s oz) | 22 | - | 1,581 | 1,603 |
| ContainedAntimony (000s lbs) | 3,106 | - | 89,678 | 92,784 |
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability - see “Compliance with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate. All composites have been capped where appropriate.
(2) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.42 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details above).
(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,400 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a 15% contingency (see details above).
(4) Where antimony grades are shown as “0.00” there is antimony present but it rounds to 0.00, where blank, antimony was not estimated.
(5) Antimony and silver were not estimated for the West End deposit due to a lack of sufficient assays, and is averaged into the totals at an assumed zero grade.