Midas Gold Updates Mineral Resources for the Stibnite Gold Project, Idaho Updated Estimate to Support Mine Planning and Feasibility Study
1 of 13
NEWS RELEASE
February 15, 2018
#2018-01
Midas Gold Updates Mineral Resources for the Stibnite Gold Project, Idaho
Updated Estimate to Support Mine Planning and Feasibility Study
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA – Midas Gold Corp. (TSX:MAX / OTCQX:MDRPF ) today updated its
mineral resource estimates for the Stibnite Gold Project (the “Project”), located in the historic Stibnite -
Yellow Pine mining district in Idaho , USA. These updated estimates incorporate: (1) additional drilling
completed since 2014 that was focused on converting mineral resources from the inferred to the indicated
category within the limits of mineral reserve limiting pit in the 2014 Preliminary Feasibility Study (“2014
PFS”), (2) additional data collected and recovered from pre -Midas Gold activities, and (3) more detailed
geological modelling supported by relogging Midas Gold core, rock geochemistry, mapping, alteration
modeling and other information. While overall totals and averages have seen modest changes since 2014,
key highlights include:
1. First time definition of a measured resource at Yellow Pine, located at surface, with a grade of 2.5
g/t gold and 0.25% antimony, which would be the first area to be mined under the development
plan proposed in the 2014 PFS.
2. An overall 6% increase in gold grade and a 22% increase in antimony grade in the Yellow Pine
deposit, which would be the first deposit to be mined under 2014 PFS, which should benefit
project economics as compared to the 2014 PFS.
3. A 31% increase in antimony contained in the mineral resources for the Project, split between the
Yellow Pine and Hangar Flats deposits, potentially increasing production of this critical metal.
4. On a total project basis, a 2% increase in measured and indicated gold grade and a 3% increase in
gold contained in the measured and indicated mineral resources.
5. The West End deposit saw a 6% increase in gold contained in indicated mineral resources, and a
49% increase in gold contained in inferred mineral resources.
6. These increases in measured and indicated mineral resources are partially offset by reductions in
inferred mineral resources as a result of the updated model and conversion of inferred resources.
Details of the above highlights are provided, below.
Table 1: Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement(1,2,3,4,5,6) for the Stibnite Gold Project
Total(5) Open Pit Oxide + Sulfide Mineral Resources – Base Case Estimate
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained Antimony Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver Grade Antimony
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (%)(5) (000s lbs)
Measured 4,623 2.53 377 3.91 581 0.25 25,821
Indicated 100,289 1.62 5,234 2.47 7,955 0.08 178,016
M & I 104,912 1.66 5,610 2.53 8,536 0.09 203,838
Inferred(6) 23,174 1.29 959 2.04 1,518 0.04 20,524
(1) All mineral resources have been estimated in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum
(“CIM”) definitions, as required under National Instrument 43-101 (“NI43-101”).
(2) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability,
as required under NI43 -101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource . Mineral
resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43 -101”
2 of 13
below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate and therefore numbers may not appear to add
precisely.
(3) Open pit sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut -off grade of 0.75 g/t Au. Cut- off grades are based on a price of
US$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(4) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut -off grade of 0.45 g/t Au. Cut -off grades are based on a price of
US$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(5) “Total” project mineral resources include those resources from the Yellow Pine, Hangar Flats, West End and Historic Tailings
deposits.
(6) Inferred mineral resources 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 updated mineral resource estimate for the Stibnite Gold Project represents another milestone in the
path towards completion of a feasibility study,” said Stephen Quin, President and CEO of Midas Gold Corp,
“The successful execution of a focused drilling campaign combined with extensive geological modelling
has resulted in a refined and enhanced mineral resource estimate that has confidence levels sufficient to
support the completion of a feasibility study,” he said. “While the overall changes to the mineral resource
estimates are relatively modest, the positive changes are concentrated in the Yellow Pine deposit, and
particularly the upper portions of that deposit, which should provide enhanced margins in the early years
of the operational life, since the Yellow Pine deposit would be the first deposit to be mined.”
Highlighted Changes to Mineral Resource Estimates
The principal changes in the 2 018 mineral resource estimates (relative to the 2014 PFS consolidated
mineral resource statement) are a 2% increase in Measured and Indicated (M&I) gold grade and a 3 %
increase in M&I gold contained in mineral resources, as well as a 31% increase in indicated antimony
contained in mineral resources. These changes are largely driven by a 6% increase in M&I gold grade at
Yellow Pine, a 10% increase in indicated mineralized tonnage in the West End d eposit and increased
antimony contained in mineral resources in both the Yellow Pine and Hangar Flats deposits. Positive
changes are slightly offset by a 2% decrease in indicated gold contained in mineral resources at Hangar
Flats.
The change in grade at Yellow Pine is the result of additional drilling and a more detailed geological model,
which better segregates mineralized and unmineralized materials on the basis of newly identified fault
zones defined based on re-logging, oriented core data from the 2016-2017 drilling program and surficial
pit mapping from pre -Midas Gold activities. Similarly, increased tonnage in the West End deposit is the
result of a more detailed geological model which subdivides metasedimentary formations into individual
lithotypes and models stratigraphic offset along post -mineralization faults. Another principal change in
the West End model is the definition of more oxide resources following a thorough comparison of cyanide
recoverable to total gold ratios against distribution of logged oxidation in drill logs.
All models use sub -block or partial- block percentage reporting to accurately report in -situ mineral
resources, which will allow for quantitative forecasting of mining dilution in the feasibility study.
Increases in antimony contained in mineral resources at Yellow Pine are due to new drilling in the
antimony resource area, definition of an antimony grade shell using indicator methods, and re-evaluation
of legacy data used in the estimate on the basis o f reconciliation against historic production records.
Similarly, the increase in antimony contained in mineral resources at Hangar Flats is the result of new
3 of 13
drilling in the antimony resource area and different treatment of legacy drillhole data following
assessment of the impact of this data. Additional details for each deposit are provided below.
2018 Updated Mineral Resources within the 2014 PFS Mineral Reserve Pit
Since the 2014 mineral resource update, Midas Gold’s efforts have almost exclusively been focused on
optimizing mineral resources located within the mineral reserve limiting pit defined in the 2014 PFS. In
order to more clearly illustrate the results of these efforts, the table below compares the updated mineral
resources within the same 2014 PFS mineral reserve limiting pit. This comparison is provided for
information purposes only and is only intended to allow a direct comparison of mineral resources within
that 2014 PFS mineral reserve limiting pit. This comparison should not be interpreted as a statement of
mineral reserves; mineral reserves will only be defined in the pending feasibility study, due for
completion in later 2018.
Table 2: Comparison of 2018 and 2014 Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement(1,2,3,4,5,6) for the
Stibnite Gold Project Located Within the 2014 PFS Mineral Reserve Limiting Pits + Historic Tailings
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained Antimony Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver Grade Antimony
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (%)(5) (000s lbs)
2018 Update
Measured and
Indicated 85,999 1.70 4,693 2.31 6,392 0.08 155,500
Inferred(6) 7,134 1.22 279 1.41 324 0.01 1,218
2014 Estimate
Indicated 83,224 1.67 4,476 2.50 6,684 0.07 132,660
Inferred(6) 7,203 1.33 308 2.02 467 0.06 9,671
2014-2018 Change
Indicated +2,775 +0.03 +217 (0.19) (292) +0.01 +22,840
Inferred(6) (69) (0.11) (29) (0.61) (143) (0.05) (8,453)
Percentage
Change
Indicated +3% +2% +5% -8% -4% +14% +17%
Inferred -1% -8% -9% -30% -31% -83% -87%
For footnotes 1-6, see Table 1.
Antimony Sub-Domains
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.
The existing historic tailings resource also contains elevated concentrations of antimony. These higher-
grade antimony zones are reported separately in the table below, in order to illustrate the potential for
antimony production from the Project and are contained within the overall mineral resource estimates
reported herein. Antimony zones are reported only if they lie within gold mineral resource estimates.
4 of 13
Table 3: Antimony Sub-Domains Consolidated Mineral Resource Statement(1,2,3) at a 0.1% Sb cut-off
within the Total Mineral Resources in Table 1
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained Antimony Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver Grade Antimony
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000's oz) (%) (000s lbs)
Measured
Yellow Pine 2,141 2.76 190 5.79 398 0.52 24,440
Indicated
Hangar Flats 6,423 2.02 416 8.26 1,705 0.57 80,987
Yellow Pine 6,705 2.32 500 5.46 1,178 0.52 76,557
Historic Tailings 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648
Total M & I 17,852 2.10 1,205 6.14 3,526 0.49 191,632
Inferred (3)
Hangar Flats 1,031 1.78 59 11.74 389 0.84 19,166
Yellow Pine 12 1.24 0 3.35 1 0.25 68
Historic Tailings 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563
Total Inferred 1,183 1.71 65 10.60 403 0.76 19,797
(1) Antimony mineral resources are reported as a subset of the total mineral resource within the conceptual pit shells used to
constrain the total gold mineral resource in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability, as required under NI43 -
101; mineralization outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource . Mineral resources are not mineral
reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “C ompliance with NI43 -101” below. All figures are
rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
(2) Open pit antimony sulfide mineral resources are reported at a cut -off grade 0.1% antimony within the overall 0.75 g/t Au
gold cut-off. Cut-off grades are based on a price of US$1,050 per ounce of gold, $4.00/lb antimony and a number of operating
cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below). The antimony subdomain is further limited to discrete
zones of mineralization with grades that exceed 0.1% antimony.
(3) Inferred mineral resources 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.
Mineral Resource Estimates by Deposit
The mineral resource estimate for the Project encompasses four separate deposits: Yellow Pine, Hangar
Flats, West End and Historic Tailings. Each deposit was modelled based on a combination of Midas Gold
and pre-Midas Gold drilling, with the latter information being used only where sufficient confidence was
obtained to support its use. Details of each of the mineral resource estimates are summarized below.
Yellow Pine Mineral Resource Estimate
The mineral resource estimate for the Yellow Pine deposit is summarized in the table below and is based
on 69,753m of drilling in 629 holes, including 43,814 m of drilling in 223 holes by Midas Gold and the
balance drilled by others. Additional work, including oriented core drilling by Midas Gold since the 2014
PFS, relogging of core, rock geochemistry and alteration modelling, mapping, surface sampling and other
information, has made possible a significantly improved and more detailed geologic model, resulting in
improved understanding of controls on mineralization. The principal changes in the 2018 updated mineral
resource estimate for Yellow Pine versus that in the 201 4 PFS are (1) use of additional geostatistical
5 of 13
estimation domains and search strategies reflecting the improved geological model, and (2) constraint of
the antimony shell using a combination of geological boundaries and indicator kriging . An additional
minor change was to remove some additional Bradley -era (1939-1953) drill holes that were used in the
PFS and eliminate the range restrictive search strategy applied to this data. T his estimation plan was
adopted following additional confirmatory drilling in the high-grade central part of the deposit by Midas
Gold, a review of legacy data relative to structural boundaries and model reconciliation against historic
production. The net result of the mineral resource estimate for Yellow Pine is a 3 % increase in gold
contained in indicated mineral resources, a 6% increase in gold grade and an 62 % reduction in gold
contained in inferred mineral resources, the latter is a result of the conversion of ounces to the indicated
category and reduced grade extrapolation based on improved geologic controls and more restrictive
search strategies. Within the PFS Mineral Reserve Pit, the result is a 6% increase in indicated gold grade
and a 2% increase in indicated contained gold resources. Other significant changes to the model include
more accurate reconstructions of the Bradley and Hecla legacy pit -bottoms, use of partial block
percentage reporting, and removal of some low-precision silver assays from the estimation plan.
Table 4: 2018 Updated Yellow Pine Mineral Resource Statement (1,2,3)
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained Antimony Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver Grade Antimony
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (%) (000s lbs)
Sulphide (1)
Measured 4,623 2.53 377 3.91 581 0.25 25,821
Indicated 38,598 1.99 2,469 2.31 2,863 0.10 81,406
M & I(2) 43,221 2.05 2,845 2.48 3,444 0.11 107,228
Inferred(3) 3,814 1.18 145 0.72 88 0.00 76
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability,
as required under NI43 -101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource . Mineral
resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43 -101”
below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
(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$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(3) Inferred mineral resources 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.
Hangar Flats Mineral Resource Estimate
The Hangar Flats mineral resource estimate tabulated below is based on 39,181m of drilling in 217 holes,
including 26,583m of drilling in 106 holes by Midas Gold and the balance drilled by others. The updated
Hangar Flats resource model incorporates additional drilling by Midas Gold since the 2014 PFS with only
minor changes to the block estimation strategy and geological model but a more restrictive classification
methodology. The net result of the updated mineral estimate for Hangar Flats is a 2 % decrease in gold
contained in indicated mineral resources and an 7% reduction in gold contained in inferred mineral
resources, the latter a result of the conversion of ounces to the indicated category and the results of
additional drilling. Within the PFS Mineral Reserve Pit, the result is a 3% increase in indicated gold grade
and a 1% decrease in indicated contained gold resources.
6 of 13
Table 5: 2018 Updated Hangar Flats Mineral Resource Statement (1,2,3)
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained Antimony Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver Grade Antimony
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (%) (000s lbs)
Sulphide (2)
Indicated 19,697 1.71 1,080 4.80 3,041 0.20 86,962
Inferred(3) 7,654 1.37 336 3.95 971 0.12 19,885
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability,
as required under NI43 -101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource . Mineral
resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43 -101”
below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
(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$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(3) Inferred mineral resources 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.
West End Mineral Resource Estimate
The updated West End mineral resource estimate tabulated below is based on 73,695m of drilling in 857
holes, including 11,767m of drilling in 50 holes by Midas Gold and the balance drilled by others. A more
detailed geological model was constructed based on 50 digitized legacy bench maps which better
constrains mineralization within the West End Fault Zone corridor, models offset along important post -
mineralization faults and subdivides key stratigraphic horizons within the thicker metasedimentary units.
The new geological model, coupled with new drilling, newly digitized blast hole assays and 448 new gold
fire assays obtained for pulps from pre-Midas Gold drill holes, led to improved modeling of controls on
mineralization and an updated mineral resource estimation strategy based on the geologic model . In
addition, Midas Gold re-evaluated the spatial distribution of oxide resources on the basis of oxidation
logging and cyanide-recoverable to total gold block ratios resulting in an 115% increase in oxide resource
tonnage. The net result of the mineral resource estimate for West End is a 6% increase in gold contained
in indicated mineral resources, and a 49% increase in gold contained in inferred mineral resources. Within
the PFS Mineral Reserve Pit, the result is a 2% decrease in indicated gold grade and a 14% increase in
indicated gold contained in mineral resources, largely resulting from definition of additional lower grade
oxide mineral resources.
7 of 13
Table 6: 2018 Updated West End Mineral Resource Statement (1,2,3,4)
Classification
Tonnage Gold Contained Silver Contained
(000s) Grade Gold Grade Silver
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz)
Oxide (3)
Indicated 18,765 0.92 557 1.37 827
Inferred(4) 3,907 0.92 115 0.96 121
Sulphide (2)
Indicated 20,645 1.55 1,029 1.48 980
Inferred(4) 7,659 1.45 357 1.32 325
Total
Indicated 39,411 1.25 1,586 1.43 1,806
Inferred(4) 11,566 1.27 472 1.20 446
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to a conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for economic viability,
as required under NI43 -101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral resource . Mineral
resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance with NI43 -101”
below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
(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$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(3) Open pit oxide mineral resources are reported at a cut -off grade of 0.45 g/t Au. Cut -off grades are based on a price of
US$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(4) Inferred mineral resources 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.
Historic Tailings Mineral Resource Estimate
No additional data has been collected in respect of the historic tailings, and the mineral resources stated
below are the same as those reported in the 2014 PFS and are repeated here for the sake of completeness.
Table 7: Historic Tailings Mineral Resource Statement (1,2,3)
Classification Tonnage
(000s)
Gold
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Gold
(000s oz)
Silver
Grade
(g/t)
Contained
Silver
(000s oz)
Antimony
Grade
(%)
Contained
Antimony
(000s lbs)
Indicated 2,583 1.19 99 2.95 245 0.17 9,648
Inferred(3) 140 1.23 6 2.88 13 0.18 563
(1) Mineral resources are reported in total above cut-off since all the spent heap leach ore stacked on top of the tailings will be
removed for construction purposes and the tailings full exposed. 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.
(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$1,050 per ounce of gold and a number of operating cost and recovery assumptions, plus a contingency (see details below).
(3) Inferred mineral resources 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.
8 of 13
Sensitivity to Cut-Off Grade
As show in the Table 8 below, the mineral resource estimates for the Project are not particularly sensitive
to gold cut-off grade.
Table 8: Combined Sensitivity to Cut-Off Grade (Base Case Highlighted) (1,2)
Sulfide Oxide Yellow Pine Hangar Flats West End Historic Tailings Total
Cutoff Cutoff (sulfide) (sulfide) (oxide + sulfide) (sulfide) (oxide + sulfide)
Grade Grade
(g/t Au) (g/t Au) Gold Contained Gold Contained Gold Contained Gold Contained Gold Contained
Grade Gold Grade Gold Grade Gold Grade Gold Grade Gold
(g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz) (g/t) (000s oz)
Measured and Indicated
0.6 0.3 1.89 2,964 1.55 1,153 1.02 1,818 1.16 102 1.45 6,037
0.65 0.35 1.95 2,923 1.61 1,128 1.10 1,737 1.17 102 1.52 5,890
0.7 0.4 2.00 2,884 1.66 1,103 1.18 1,659 1.17 101 1.60 5,747
0.75 0.45 2.05 2,845 1.71 1,080 1.25 1,586 1.19 99 1.66 5,610
0.8 0.5 2.10 2,806 1.75 1,056 1.32 1,516 1.21 96 1.73 5,474
0.85 0.55 2.14 2,769 1.80 1,031 1.39 1,450 1.24 92 1.79 5,342
0.9 0.6 2.18 2,732 1.85 1,006 1.46 1,388 1.26 89 1.85 5,215
Inferred(2)
0.6 0.3 1.06 172 1.19 392 1.04 545 1.21 6 1.09 1,115
0.65 0.35 1.10 163 1.25 373 1.12 519 1.21 6 1.16 1,061
0.7 0.4 1.15 153 1.31 353 1.20 494 1.22 6 1.23 1,006
0.75 0.45 1.18 145 1.37 336 1.27 472 1.23 6 1.29 959
0.8 0.5 1.22 138 1.43 316 1.33 452 1.27 5 1.35 911
0.85 0.55 1.26 129 1.49 301 1.39 433 1.3 5 1.40 868
0.9 0.6 1.30 121 1.54 287 1.44 416 1.31 5 1.45 829
(1) Mineral resources are reported in relation to the base -case conceptual pit shell in order to demonstrate potential for
economic viability, as required under NI43 -101; mineralization lying outside of these pit shells is not reported as a mineral
resource. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability – see “Compliance
with NI43-101” below. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
(2) Inferred mineral resources 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.
Cut-Off Grade and Prospects for Economic Extraction
The updated mineral resources are reported within the same pit-shells and at the same cut-off grades as
Midas Gold used in 2014. The cut-off grades of 0.75 g/t gold for sulphides and 0.45 g/t gold for oxides are
equivalent to a conservative gold price assumption of approximately $1,050/ounce , based on updated
cost estimates from ongoing feasibility level engineering studies (Table 9, below). Prospects for eventual
economic extraction of the mineral resources, as required by NI43-101, were demonstrated in the 2014