Summary Disclosure
−Removed: The Company has only one material mining property, the Stibnite Gold Project, a formerly abandoned, brownfield mine site in rural Idaho, USA.
+Added: The Corporation has only one material mining property, the Stibnite Gold Project, a formerly abandoned, brownfield mine site in rural Idaho, USA.
We hold the Stibnite Gold Project through our wholly-owned subsidiary Idaho Gold Resources Company, LLC.
The Project consists of mining the Yellow Pine, Hangar Flats and West End deposits using conventional open pit methods, conventional processing methods to extract gold, silver and antimony, and on-site production of gold (“Au”) and silver (“Ag”) doré and an antimony (“Sb”) concentrate.
−Removed: The Project also entails an extensive reclamation and restoration program for historical impacts to the site including the recovery and reprocessing of historical tailings, restoration of fish passage during and after operations, relocation of historical mining wastes to engineered storage facilities, stream restoration, and reforestation of impacted areas.
−Removed: Perpetua Resources’ plans for decommissioning the site include progressive and concurrent remediation, reclamation, and restoration activities, beginning at the start of construction and continuing beyond the operations phase, through Project reclamation and closure.
+Added: The Project also entails an extensive reclamation and restoration program for historical legacy impacts to the site including the recovery and reprocessing of historical tailings, restoration of fish passage during and after operations, relocation of historical mining wastes to engineered storage facilities, stream restoration, and reforestation of impacted areas.
+Added: Some environmental work is currently in process under the ASAOC.
+Added: This work is designed to improve water quality on the Project site and is expected to be
+Added: completed prior to the Project’s planned reclamation and restoration activities.
+Added: The Corporation’s plans for decommissioning the site include progressive and concurrent remediation, reclamation, and restoration activities, beginning at the start of construction and continuing beyond the operations phase, through Project reclamation and closure.
We are currently undertaking an extensive permitting process for redevelopment and restoration of the Project.
1 unchanged sentence
The disclosures in this Item 2, Properties regarding Perpetua Resources’ 100% interest in the Stibnite Gold Project have been prepared in accordance with the mining property disclosure rules specified in S-K 1300.
−Removed: Except for subsequent events or as otherwise noted, the disclosure in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of a scientific or technical nature for the Stibnite Gold Project is derived from, and in some instances is an extract from, the Technical Report Summary (“TRS”), dated as of December 31, 2021, which is included as Exhibit 96.1 of this Annual Report.
−Removed: The TRS summarizes, as of December 31, 2021, in accordance with the mining property disclosure rules specified in S-K 1300, the information presented in the technical report titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Feasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 22, 2020 and issued January 27, 2021 (the “2020 Feasibility Study”), which was prepared in accordance with mining property disclosure standards set forth in NI 43-101.
−Removed: The technical data and economic conclusions of these reports are identical, with minor differences between the reports resulting only from (i) the respective disclosure requirements of S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 and (ii) differences in commodity prices at the respective effective dates.
−Removed: The notable differences are the following:
−Removed: ● The TRS Mineral Resource estimates were developed based on a gold price of $1,500/oz versus the $1,250/oz gold price assumed for the 2020 Feasibility Study.
−Removed: The change in gold price results from higher trailing average gold prices at the date of preparation for the respective reports.
−Removed: ● The Measured Mineral Resources in the 2020 Feasibility Study were reclassified to Indicated Mineral Resources in the TRS due to differences in S-K 1300 versus NI 43-101 Mineral Resources classification guidelines.
−Removed: ● The Proven Mineral Reserves from the 2020 Feasibility Study were reclassified as Probable Mineral Reserves for the TRS resulting from the reclassification of the Measured Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources due to differences in S-K 1300 versus NI 43-101 Mineral Resources classification guidelines.
−Removed: ● The TRS is classified as a Preliminary Feasibility level study whereas the 2020 Feasibility Study was classified as a Feasibility level study.
−Removed: This change was driven by the S-K 1300 requirement that a compliant Feasibility level TRS include a capital cost contingency allowance no greater than 10%, whereas the initial capital cost estimate for the 2020 Feasibility Study included a contingency allowance at approximately 15%.
−Removed: The TRS was compiled by M3 in compliance with S-K 1300 promulgated by the SEC under the direction of Independent Qualified Persons (as defined in S-K 1300) (“QPs”).
−Removed: QPs for the TRS include:
−Removed: Richard Zimmerman, SME-RM (onsite and offsite infrastructure, cost estimating, mineral processing, financial modeling) with M3;
−Removed: Garth Kirkham, P.Geo.
−Removed: (mineral resources) with Kirkham Geosystems Ltd.;
−Removed: Christopher Martin, C.Eng.
−Removed: (metallurgy) with Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd.;
−Removed: Grenvil Dunn, C.Eng.
−Removed: (hydrometallurgy) with Hydromet WA (Pty) Ltd.;
−Removed: Scott Rosenthal P.E.
−Removed: (mine planning and mineral reserves) with Value Consulting, Inc.;
−Removed: and Peter Kowalewski, P.E.
−Removed: (tailings storage facility and closure) with Tierra Group International, Ltd.
−Removed: The 2020 Feasibility Study was compiled by M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (“M3”) in accordance with NI 43-101 under the direction of independent qualified persons (as defined in NI 43-101) (“Independent QPs”).
−Removed: Independent QPs for the 2020 Feasibility Study include:
−Removed: Richard Zimmerman, SME-RM (onsite and offsite infrastructure, cost estimating and financial modeling) and Art Ibrado, P.E.
−Removed: (mineral processing) with M3;
−Removed: Garth Kirkham, P.Geo.
−Removed: (mineral resources) with Kirkham Geosystems Ltd.;
−Removed: Christopher Martin, C.Eng.
−Removed: (metallurgy) with Blue Coast Metallurgy Ltd.;
−Removed: Grenvil Dunn, C.Eng.
−Removed: (hydrometallurgy) with Hydromet WA (Pty) Ltd.;
−Removed: Chris Roos, P.E.
−Removed: (mineral reserves) and Scott Rosenthal P.E.
−Removed: (mine planning) with Value Consulting, Inc.;
−Removed: and Peter Kowalewski, P.E.
−Removed: (tailings storage facility and closure) with Tierra Group International, Ltd.
−Removed: The TRS was filed on EDGAR on January 3, 2022 and on SEDAR on January 4, 2022.
+Added: Except for subsequent events or as otherwise noted, the disclosure in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of a scientific or technical nature for the Stibnite Gold Project is derived from, and in some instances is an extract from, the Technical Report Summary, dated as of December 31, 2021, and amended as of June 6, 2022, which is included as Exhibit 96.1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
+Added: There are no material changes to the information presented in the TRS.
+Added: The TRS summarizes, as of December 31, 2021, in accordance with the mining property disclosure rules specified in S-K 1300, the information presented in the technical report titled “Stibnite Gold Project, Feasibility Study Technical Report, Valley County, Idaho” dated effective December 22, 2020 and issued January 27, 2021, which was prepared in accordance with mining property disclosure standards set forth in NI 43-101.
+Added: The TRS was filed by the Company on Form 8-K on EDGAR on June 8, 2022 and is included as Exhibit 96.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
The 2020 Feasibility Study was filed on SEDAR on January 28, 2021.
−Removed: See Exhibit 96.1 of this Annual Report and “ Note Regarding Mining Property Disclosures Rules ” .
+Added: You should read the TRS as part of your review of the information in this Item 2.
Certain capitalized terms in this section not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the TRS.
−Removed: Garth Kirkham, P.Geo., an independent Qualified Person, has approved the disclosure concerning mineral reserves and mineral resources in this Annual Report on Form 10-K related to the 2020 Feasibility Study and the TRS.
+Added: Information of a scientific or technical nature in this Annual Report has been approved by Christopher Dail, AIPG CPG #10596, Exploration Manager for Perpetua Resources Idaho, Inc.
+Added: and a qualified person (as defined in NI 43-101 and as defined in S-K 1300).
Portions of the information presented in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the information contained in the TRS rely on a number of estimates and assumptions, including estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to significant scientific, business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies that could be material should those assumptions be incorrect.
3 unchanged sentences
there are no significant errors in calculations and information used in mineral resource and reserve estimates, there will be no unforeseen delays, unexpected geological or other effects, equipment failures, or significant permitting delays.
−Removed: For a description of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate mineral reserves and mineral resources included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as data verification procedures and a general discussion of the extent to which the estimates may be affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing or other relevant factors, please review the TRS, which is included as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference into, this Form 10-K.
+Added: For a description of the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate mineral reserves and mineral resources included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as data verification procedures and a general discussion of the extent to which the estimates may be affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing or other relevant factors, please review the TRS, which is included as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
See “ Risk Factors ” and “ Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements ” for a discussion of additional industry and business risks and assumptions.
11 unchanged sentences
$1,263 million
−Removed: Case B at US$1,600/oz gold (Base Case) (1)
−Removed: After-Tax Net Present Value 5%
−Removed: $1,320 million
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (3)
−Removed: Annual Average After Tax Free Cash Flow (3)
−Removed: Internal Rate of Return (After-tax)
−Removed: Payback Period in Years (After-tax)
−Removed: Case C at US$1,850/oz gold (1)
−Removed: After-Tax Net Present Value 5%
−Removed: $1,864 million
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (3)
−Removed: Annual Average After Tax Free Cash Flow (3)
−Removed: Internal Rate of Return (After-tax)
−Removed: Payback Period in Years (After-tax)
(1) Base case prices US$1,600/oz gold, $20/oz silver and $3.50/lb antimony, Case C price based on metal selling prices of US$1,850/oz gold, $24/oz silver and $3.50/lb antimony, Post-Tax NPV at 5% discount rate.
(2) In this release, “M” = million, “k” = thousand, all amounts in US$, gold and silver reported in troy ounces (“oz”).
−Removed: (3) Cash costs, All-in Sustaining Costs, EBITDA and After Tax Free Cash Flow are non-GAAP measures;
+Added: (3) Cash costs and All-in Sustaining Costs are non-GAAP measures;
see section Item 2, Non-GAAP Measures .
58 unchanged sentences
In 2021, SGC merged with IGRCLLC becoming the sole surviving entity and landowner of patented and unpatented mining claims and mill sites and various optioned properties.
+Added: In 2022, 53 of the Corporation’s unpatented lode mining claims were relinquished and re-staked with 203 unpatented mill sites over areas non-mineral in character and suitable for mill sites should a development decision be made.
Currently, IGRCLLC owns 1,419 unpatented lode mining and 249 mill sites totaling approximately 28,483 acres (11,527 hectares).
18 unchanged sentences
The amended agreement also includes an option on a Right of First Refusal to purchase the surface rights associated with portions of certain patented mill site claims that J.J.
−Removed: Oberbillig Estate sold to Hecla under a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement dated effective as of December 30, 2002.
+Added: Oberbillig Estate sold to Hecla under a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement effective December 30, 2002.
The agreement also includes granting of a renewable easement for a communications tower.
22 unchanged sentences
The Project is subject to formal review under NEPA, which is still ongoing.
−Removed: Following the release of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) on August 14, 2020, followed by a public comment period, the USFS indicated it plans to issue a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“SDEIS”) focused on the refined Project proposed action.
−Removed: On February 22, 2022, Perpetua announced that it expected publication of the SDEIS for public review and comment in the third quarter of 2022.
−Removed: A final EIS and draft Record of Decision will follow in due course.
+Added: Following the release of a DEIS on August 14, 2020, followed by a public comment period, the USFS published a SDEIS on October 28, 2022 for a 75-day public comment period which closed on January 10, 2023.
+Added: The Corporation expects that a final EIS and draft Record of Decision will follow in due course.
Work on other required ancillary permits and management plans continues.
20 unchanged sentences
Yellow Pine Company, Bradley Mining Company, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, Canadian Superior Mining (U.S.) Ltd., El Paso Oil and Gas, Rancher’s Exploration Company, Twin Rivers Exploration, MinVen Corporation, Pioneer Metals Corporation, Hecla Mining Company, Barrick Gold Corporation (formerly American Barrick Resources), Stibnite Mine Inc., and Dakota Mining Company.
−Removed: No drilling was completed during the reporting period.
+Added: No exploration drilling was completed during the reporting period.
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Estimates
The tables below present the estimated Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves for the Project at December 31, 2022 presented in accordance with S-K 1300.
−Removed: As described in “ Technical Report Summary ”, the only differences in the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves presented as at December 22, 2020 in the 2020 Feasibility Study and as at December 31, 2021 in the TRS are related to (i) the respective disclosure requirements of S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 and (ii) differences in commodity prices at the respective effective dates.
−Removed: See “ Notice Regarding Mining Property Disclosure Rules ” for more information regarding these differences.
−Removed: Economic Criteria, Assumptions and Pit Optimizations for Mineral Resources
−Removed: S-K 1300 requires that Mineral Resources have “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” requiring that mineralization meet certain grade and material volume thresholds under reasonable production and recovery scenarios at reasonable cut-off grades and was assessed using an open-pit optimization with assumptions noted as discussed in Section 11.7 of the TRS.
−Removed: The potential for eventual economic extraction was assessed using an open-pit optimization Pseudoflow algorithm in MineSight® Version 15.10 software.
−Removed: Input parameters were developed on the basis of advanced cost estimates, metallurgical recoveries indicated by bench and pilot scale test work and from feasibility level design engineering studies, as shown in table below.
−Removed: Section 8.7 in the TRS contains assumptions regarding the validity of historical sample collection, preparation, analysis for pre-Perpetua Resources exploration programs.
−Removed: Section 11.9 in the TRS describes assumptions made to address areas of uncertainty related to mineral resource estimation, mineral resource classification, and parameters used to estimate reasonable prospects of economic extraction.
−Removed: The Mineral Resource estimates were developed using parameters that describe lithology, in-situ density, estimated metal recoveries from in situ materials and after processing and refining, ore and waste percentage, oxidation, and metal grades, as explained in detail in Section 11.
−Removed: Metallurgical recovery functions and costs were applied to gold, silver, and antimony as presented in Sections 11 and 14 in the TRS.
−Removed: Assumptions used to derive the cut-off grades and define the resource-limiting pits were estimated to meet the S-K 1300 requirement for mineral resource estimates to demonstrate “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” and vary from those used to limit the mineral reserves reported herein.
−Removed: Section 13.12.3 in the TRS contains procedures used for validation of cost assumptions applied to estimate the cut-off values in the pit optimization analyses.
−Removed: Based on these parameters, cut-off grades for Hangar Flats, West End and Yellow Pine were calculated based on a $1,500/oz gold selling price and was selected based on the three-year trailing average at the time of resource reporting and is below the current spot and trailing average gold prices.
−Removed: Based on these parameters, cut-off grades for Hangar Flats, West End and Yellow Pine were calculated to be approximately 0.40 g/t Au and an open pit oxide cut-off grade of approximately 0.35 g/t Au.
−Removed: Because of the flat and shallow geometry of the Historical Tailings deposit, and due to potential use of the overlying material in conceptual construction scenarios, economic criteria were not assessed using a pit optimization.
−Removed: Instead, cost estimates for removing the overlying Spent Ore Disposal Area (“SODA”) material were compared to potential revenue from processing the tailings material and were shown to be positive.
−Removed: As permitted by S-K 1300, the Company uses different gold prices to prepare its Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves estimates.
−Removed: The Company selected a conservative gold price of $1,500/oz when estimating Mineral Resources for the TRS.
−Removed: The Mineral Reserves in the TRS were calculated at a gold price of $1,600/oz, which was the three year trailing average gold price used to calculate Mineral Reserves for the 2020 Feasibility Study and which the Company determined was a reasonable and conservative gold price based on market prices at the time that the TRS was prepared.
−Removed: Economic Parameters
−Removed: & Hangar Flats
−Removed: Mining Cost - Waste
−Removed: $/tonne mined
−Removed: Mining Cost - Ore
−Removed: $/tonne mined
−Removed: Ore Type Classification
−Removed: Oxide Processing Cost
−Removed: $/tonne mined
−Removed: Oxide Au Recovery
−Removed: R*92.75 + 1.22
−Removed: Transition Processing Cost
−Removed: $/tonne mined
−Removed: Transition Au Recovery
−Removed: 92.37 - R*8.93
−Removed: Sulfide Processing Cost
−Removed: $/tonne milled
−Removed: Sulfide Au Recovery
−Removed: 96.42 - R*84.72
−Removed: Dore Transport Cost
−Removed: Dore Refining Cost
−Removed: G&A and Rehabilitation Cost
−Removed: $/tonne milled
−Removed: Au Payability
−Removed: Au Selling Price - Base Case
−Removed: Mining dilution
−Removed: Mining recovery
−Removed: NSR Royalty on Au
−Removed: The term “R” used in the West End metallurgical recovery formulas refers to the fraction of free, or cyanide soluble, gold in each block.
−Removed: The value is estimated by dividing the cyanide soluble gold assay estimate by the fire assay gold estimate (for each block).
−Removed: The Mineral Resource estimates for the Project were estimated in conformity with Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards (“CRIRSCO”) “International Reporting Template for the public reporting of Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” as adopted by the International Council on Mining & Metals in November 2019.
−Removed: The mineral resources are reported in accordance with S-K 1300.
−Removed: The Mineral Resource estimates for each of the Hangar Flats, West End and Yellow Pine deposits, and the Historical Tailings, were prepared using commercial mine-modeling and geostatistical software, consider relevant modifying factors, and have been verified by an Independent QP.
−Removed: The consolidated Mineral Resource statement for the Project in metric tonnes (t) is shown in the table below based on a gold selling price of US$1,500/troy ounce limiting pit shell.
+Added: There were no changes in reported Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves reported for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2022.
+Added: The Qualified Person has reviewed the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves described herein and is of the opinion that there are no material changes to the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves as compared to the information presented in the TRS and that the material assumptions set forth in the TRS are current as of December 31, 2022.
Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following table presents the estimated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources for the Project at December 31, 2021 based on $1,500/oz gold price and presented in accordance with S-K 1300.
−Removed: While the 2020 Feasibility Study includes both Measured and Indicated Mineral Reserves, all Measured Mineral Reserves presented in the 2020 Feasibility Study were reclassified as Indicated Mineral Reserves in the TRS due to differences in calculation standards under S-K 1300 compared to NI 43-101.
+Added: The following table presents the estimated Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources for the Project at December 31, 2022 based on $1,500/oz gold price and are presented exclusive of Mineral Reserves in accordance with S-K 1300.
+Added: There were no changes to Mineral Resources since December 31, 2021.
Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement for the Stibnite Gold Project at December 31, 2022, based on $1,500/oz gold,
+Added: EXCLUSIVE OF RESERVES:
Classification
10 unchanged sentences
(2) Open pit sulfide Mineral Resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.40 g/t Au and open pit oxide Mineral Resources are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.35 g/t Au.
−Removed: The Yellow Pine and Hangar Flats deposits contain zones with substantially elevated antimony-silver mineralization, defined as containing greater than 0.1% antimony, relative to the overall Mineral Resource.
−Removed: The existing Historical Tailings Mineral Resource also contains elevated concentrations of antimony.
−Removed: Antimony Mineral Resources are reported only if they lie within gold Mineral Resource estimates.
−Removed: Antimony Sub-Domains Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement at December 31, 2021 based on $1,500/oz gold:
−Removed: Classification
−Removed: Historical Tailings
−Removed: Total Indicated
−Removed: Historical Tailings
−Removed: Total Inferred
−Removed: (1) Antimony mineral resources are reported as a subset of the total mineral resource within the conceptual pit shells used to constrain the total mineral resource in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability;
−Removed: mineralization outside of these pit shells is not
−Removed: reported as a mineral resource.
−Removed: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
−Removed: All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
−Removed: (2) Open pit antimony sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut-off grade 0.1% antimony within the overall 0.40 g/t Au cut-off.
−Removed: Economic Criteria, Assumptions and Pit Optimizations for Mineral Reserves
−Removed: The Mineral Reserve Estimates for the Project were estimated in conformity with CRIRSCO “International Reporting Template for the public reporting of Exploration Targets, Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” and are reported in accordance with S-K 1300.
−Removed: The Mineral Reserve estimates for each of the Yellow Pine, Hangar Flats, and West End deposits, and the Historical Tailings, were prepared to industry standards and best practices and take into consideration modifying factors including mining, processing, metallurgical, environmental, location and infrastructure, market factors, legal, economic, social, and governmental factors.
−Removed: The Mineral Reserve estimates are based on a mine plan and pit design developed using modifying parameters including metal price, metal recovery based on performance of the processing plant, and operating cost estimates.
−Removed: Operating cost estimates and other parameters are described in Section 12 of the TRS.
−Removed: Metallurgical data used to estimate the recovery of gold, silver, antimony (where present) and sulfur from expected processing plant feed material were derived from extensive metallurgical test work on representative materials and pilot plant-scale testing and further described in Section 14 of the TRS.
−Removed: Recoveries include assumptions regarding dilution of in situ material, mining losses and reductions for losses during processing and refining.
−Removed: The Mineral Reserve estimates were developed by allowing only Indicated Mineral Resource blocks to contribute positive economic value and is a subset of the Mineral Resource comprised of the Probable Mineral Reserve that is planned for processing over the life-of-mine plan, with assumptions summarized in Sections 12 and 13 of the TRS.
−Removed: No economic credit has been applied to Inferred mineralization in the development of the Mineral Reserve, even if they lie within the Mineral Reserve pit.
−Removed: The general mine planning sequence to produce the SGP Mineral Reserve estimates and associated mill feed schedule consisted of an ultimate pit limit analysis, pit shell selection, ultimate pit designs, internal pit phase design, mining sequence schedule, and mill feed optimization.
−Removed: A suite of nested pit shells for each deposit was generated using Geovia Whittle™ and a gold selling price ranging from $100 to $2,000 per troy ounce in $50 increments.
−Removed: The pit limit analysis was performed based on gold recovery only, to ensure the ultimate pit geometries would not be dependent on silver or antimony values.
−Removed: Mining costs used for the pit limit analysis are based on a first principles cost buildup for equipment requirements, labor estimates, and consumables price quotes.
−Removed: Selection of the optimal pit shells for each deposit was based on discounted cash flow analysis.
−Removed: For Yellow Pine and West End, the incremental change in discounted pit value (net present value) and strip ratio between potentially optimal pit shells is gradual, and pit shells representing gold selling prices of $1,250/oz and $1,300/oz respectively were selected.
−Removed: For Hangar Flats, the pit limit analysis suggested selecting the $1,150/oz pit shell but, due to additional technical considerations, the $750/oz pit shell was selected.
−Removed: The ultimate pit designs were based on the selected pit shells, design parameters for 150-ton haul trucks, geotechnical design criteria, and additional mine sequencing and haulage considerations.
−Removed: Cut-off determination utilized a NSR methodology to account for varying ore types and separate process streams with unique process costs.
−Removed: The cut-off strategy applies elevated cut-off values to ensure the highest-grade ore available in the mine plan is processed preferentially and lower grade ore is stored in ore stockpiles for processing later in the Project life.
−Removed: Cutoff grades for Mineral Reserves were developed assuming long term metal prices of $1,600/oz gold, $20.00/oz silver, and $3.50/lb antimony for material lying within the pit designs based on the pit shells selected above ($1,250, $750 and $1,300/oz Au for Yellow Pine, Hangar Flats and West End, respectively).
−Removed: This results in a Life-of-Mine (“LOM”) average gold cut-off grade of 0.48 g/t for open-pit mining.
−Removed: As permitted by S-K 1300, the Company uses different gold prices to prepare its Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves estimates.
−Removed: The Company selected a conservative gold price of $1,500/oz when estimating Mineral Resources for the TRS.
−Removed: The Mineral Reserves in the TRS were calculated at a gold price of $1,600/oz, which was the three year trailing average gold price used to calculate Mineral Reserves for the 2020 Feasibility Study and which the Company determined was a reasonable and conservative gold price based on market prices at the time that the TRS was prepared.
+Added: (3) Mineral Resources are reported in place (point of reference).
+Added: (4) All numbers have been rounded in above table and may not sum correctly.
Mineral Reserve Estimates
The following table presents the estimated Mineral Reserves for the Project at December 31, 2022 based on $1,600/oz gold price and presented in accordance with S-K 1300.
−Removed: While the 2020 Feasibility Study includes both Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves, all Proven Mineral Reserves presented in the 2020 Feasibility Study were reclassified as Probable Mineral Reserves in the TRS due to differences in calculation standards under S-K 1300 compared to NI 43-101.
+Added: There were no changes to Mineral Reserves since December 31, 2021.
Under S-K 1300, a Proven Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of an indicated and, in some cases, a measured mineral resource and a Probable Mineral Reserve is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource and can only result from conversion of a measured mineral resource.
26 unchanged sentences
(3) Antimony values are reported only for ore scheduled in the mine plan that is classified as High Sb Sulfide.
+Added: Mineral Reserves are reported from the reference point of delivery to the processing plant.
+Added: These reserves are subject to variable metallurgical recoveries for gold, silver, and antimony depending on the host rock, process flowsheet, and product (i.e.
+Added: doré bullion or antimony concentrate).
+Added: The average recoveries into bullion are 87% for gold and 13% for silver.
+Added: The average recoveries into antimony concentrate are 68% for antimony, 0.1% for gold, and 2% for silver.
+Added: All numbers have been rounded in above table and may not sum correctly.
Mining Methods
91 unchanged sentences
Reclamation financial assurance costs are not included in the capital costs.
−Removed: Additional assumptions that were used to estimate CAPEX are presented in Section 18.1 of the TRS.
+Added: Additional assumptions that were used to estimate CAPEX are presented in the TRS.
Capital Costs
6 unchanged sentences
The CAPEX estimate includes direct mining equipment and pre-stripping costs, process plant costs, on-site infrastructure such as the TSF and the operations camp, and off-site infrastructure such as the power transmission line, the mine access road, the SGLF, and reclamation and closure costs.
−Removed: The initial CAPEX also includes indirect costs for detailed design and engineering, land acquisition, some environmental mitigation, and other costs.
+Added: The initial CAPEX includes indirect costs for detailed design and engineering, land acquisition, some environmental mitigation, and other costs.
Initial CAPEX also includes an estimate of contingency based on the accuracy and level of detail of the cost estimate.
13 unchanged sentences
(1) Closure assumes self-performed closure costs, which will differ for those assumed for financial assurance calculations required by regulators.
+Added: (2) All numbers have been rounded in above table and may not sum correctly.
Operating Costs and All-In Costs
4 unchanged sentences
A summary of these Project costs is presented below.
−Removed: Assumptions that were used to estimate OPEX are presented in Section 18.2 of the TRS.
+Added: Assumptions that were used to estimate OPEX are presented in the TRS.
Total Production Cost Item
15 unchanged sentences
(3) Initial Capital includes capitalized preproduction .
−Removed: Economic Analysis
−Removed: The economic model is not a true cash flow model as defined by financial accounting standards but rather a representation of Project economics at a level of detail appropriate for the Company’s level of engineering and design.
−Removed: The first year of analysis starts with the decision point of the Project, the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement, and preliminary permit approval (Year -3 or three years before the start of commercial production).
−Removed: Taxation was taken into account using current federal, state, and county rates but the overall tax calculation is approximate and uses rudimentary depletion and depreciation estimates.
−Removed: Financial Assumptions used in the Economic Analyses
−Removed: Net Present Value Discount Rate
−Removed: Federal Income Tax Rate
−Removed: Idaho Income Tax Rate
−Removed: Idaho Mine License Tax
−Removed: Valley County Rural Property Tax Rate ($/$1,000 market value)
−Removed: Percentage Depletion Rate for Gold and Silver
−Removed: Percentage Depletion Rate for Antimony
−Removed: Depreciation Term
−Removed: Equity Finance Assumption
−Removed: Four cases were run in the economic model to present a range of economic outcomes using varying metal prices.
−Removed: The metal prices used in the economic model are shown in the table below.
−Removed: There is no guarantee that any of the metal prices used in the five cases are representative of future metals prices.
−Removed: Table 1-11 and Section 19.1of the TRS contain assumptions used in the construction of the financial model.
−Removed: Pre- and After-Tax Economic Results by Case
−Removed: Pre-tax Results
−Removed: After-tax Results
−Removed: Case A ($1,350/oz Au, $16.00/oz Ag, $3.50/lb Sb)
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (1)
−Removed: Annual Average After-Tax Free Cash Flow (1)
−Removed: Payback Period
−Removed: Production Years
−Removed: Case B ($1,600/oz Au, $20.00/oz Ag, $3.50/lb Sb)
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (1)
−Removed: Annual Average After-Tax Free Cash Flow (1)
−Removed: Payback Period
−Removed: Production Years
−Removed: Case C ($1,850/oz Au, $24.00/oz Ag, $3.50/lb Sb)
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (1)
−Removed: Annual Average After-Tax Free Cash Flow (1)
−Removed: Payback Period
−Removed: Production Years
−Removed: Case D ($2,100/oz Au, $28.00/oz Ag, $3.50/lb Sb)
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (1)
−Removed: Annual Average After-Tax Free Cash Flow (1)
−Removed: Payback Period
−Removed: Production Years
−Removed: Case E ($2,350/oz Au, $32.00/oz Ag, $3.50/lb Sb)
−Removed: Annual Average EBITDA (1)
−Removed: Annual Average After-Tax Free Cash Flow (1)
−Removed: Payback Period
−Removed: Production Years
−Removed: (1) EBITDA and After-Tax Free Cash Flow are non-GAAP measures;
−Removed: see section Item 2, Non-GAAP Measures , below.
+Added: (4) All numbers have been rounded in above table and may not sum correctly.
Mineral Resource and Reserve Internal Controls
13 unchanged sentences
Independent data audits have been conducted and indicate that the sample collection and database entry procedures are acceptable.
−Removed: ● All core has been catalogued and stored in designated areas.
+Added: All core samples have been catalogued and stored in designated areas.
Mineral resources and mineral reserves are estimates that are imprecise and depend upon geologic interpretation and statistical inferences drawn from drilling and sampling analysis, which may prove to be unreliable.
2 unchanged sentences
To provide investors with additional information in connection with our economic analysis as determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”), we disclose certain projected non-GAAP financial measures.
−Removed: The projected non-GAAP financial measures include Cash Costs, EBITDA, All-in Sustaining Costs and After-Tax Free Cash Flow estimates and related calculations.
+Added: The projected non-GAAP financial measures include Cash Costs and All-in Sustaining Costs estimates and related calculations.
Cash Cost and All-in Sustaining costs (AISC)
2 unchanged sentences
property tax) and is used to evaluate the Company’s future operating performance and the ability to generate cash flow from operations.
−Removed: Earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is a non-GAAP metric generated from adding back taxes, interest, depreciation to net income and is used to evaluate the Company’s future operating performance.
−Removed: After-Tax Free Cash Flow (FCF)
−Removed: After-Tax Free Cash Flow (FCF) is a non-GAAP metric defined as net cash provided from operating activities less capital expenditures and taxes and is used to evaluate the Company’s future operating performance and ability to generate excess cash flow but it does not entirely represent cash available for discretionary expenditures due to the fact that the measure does not deduct the payments required for debt service and other items.
We believe the projected non-GAAP financial measures included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K provide additional meaningful comparisons between the Company’s economic analysis and its peer companies.
4 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.