Saturday, September 26, 2026
MiningNewsTerminal
Saturday, September 26, 2026 Admin

VAU.V ·

Viva Gold Announces PEA Study Results for its Tonopah Gold Project, Nevada

Economic Studies

NR 25-07

Viva Gold Announces PEA Study Results for its Tonopah Gold Project, Nevada

VANCOUVER, BC – July 7, 202 5 – Viva Gold Corp ( TSXV: VAU; OTCQB: VAUCF ) (the

“Company” or “ Viva”) is pleased to announce the results of its updated Mineral Resource Estimate

(“MRE”) and Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) for its 100%-owned Tonopah Gold P roject

(“Tonopah or Project”). Tonopah is located about 20 minutes’ drive from the town of Tonopah, Nevada .

The study was prepared by WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) of Calgary , Alberta and Kappes , Cassiday

Associates (“KCA”) of Reno, Nevada. All amounts shown in this news release are in United States Dollars

and metric units of measurement unless otherwise stated.

Tonopah Project PEA & MRE Highlights

• The updated MRE reports a measured and indicated (“M&I”) Mineral R esource containing

504,000 ounces gold (“Au”) at 0.59 grams per tonne (“g/t”) Au, 1.8 million ounces silver (“Ag”),

2.05 g/t Ag, and an inferred Mineral Resource of 83,000 ounces Au at 0.37 g/t Au, 402,000 ounces

Ag, at 1.81 g/t Ag, all constrained within a pit shell above a 0.15 g/t Au cut-off (see Table 1).

• Life of mine (“LOM”) PEA production of 23.5 million tonnes of Mineral Resource; consisting

of 4.5 million tonnes at an average grade of 1.75 g/t Au and 3.35 g/t Ag as mill circuit feed ; and

19.0 million tonnes at 0.37 g/t Au and 1.69 g/t Ag to the heap leach; at a strip ratio of 3.9 tonnes of

waste per tonne of mineralized material.

• Average mill circuit gold recoveries of 93% Au, 37% Ag, and heap leach Au recoveries of 75%

Au, 14% Ag, to produce a total of 404,000 ounces of payable Au and 354,000 ounces of Ag over

a seven-year mine life with an additional year of residual Au/Ag recovery from the heap leach.

• After-tax net present value (“NPV”) at a 5% discount rate (“NPV5%”) of $111.6 million at a gold

price of USD$2,400 per ounce ($27.70 Ag) increasing to $363.6 million at a gold price of $3,200

per ounce ($36.93 Ag).

• After-tax Internal rate of return (“IRR”) of 17.6% at a gold price of $2,400 per ounce increasing to

an IRR of 43.4% at a gold price of $3,200.

• After-tax payback period of 3.6 years from commencement of production at $2,400 per ounce Au,

decreasing to 1.8 years at an Au price of $3,200 ($36.93 Ag).

• Average production cash costs of $1,164 per ounce of Au and All-In Sustaining Cost (“AISC”) of

$1,269 per ounce Au.

• Pre-production capital expenditure of $ 219.9 million, $22.2 million in working capital, and

additional LOM sustaining capital of $ 70.4 million including purchase of mine fleet under

capitalized lease/purchase terms. New equipment pricing is assumed at this phase of work.

“This detailed PEA of the Tonopah Gold Project demonstrates significant leverage to the price of gold and

displays accretive potential value when compared to Viva ’s current market capitalization ”, states James

Hesketh, President & CEO. “The Tonopah gold project represents a unique opportunity to develop a gold

project in one of the best mi ning jurisdiction s in the world with excellent existing infrastructure and

proximity to surrounding producers and metallurgical facilities. This location reduces infrastructure capital

and can help to accelerate the permitting process. Opportunity may exist to defer or reduce initial capital

expense through toll processing /milling, purchased of used equipment, or through contract mining with

competitive bidding versus owner mining operations. We also believe that a unique permitting environment

exists in the US and Nevada and Viva intends to accelerate feasibility study on Tonopah which will allow

Viva to initiate the permitting process to take advantage of that window. In addition, while Viva’s focus is

on advancing its core gold resource through feasibility and permitting, we remain convinced that substantial

exploration potential remains in and around our project area, which we can demonstrate from existing drill

results”.

Project Description

Viva’s 100% owned Tonopah gold project sits in the middle of gold mining country about a half hour drive

south of the Round Mountain mine owned by Kinross Gold and controls a major land position on the prolific

Walker Lane Trend in Western Nevada. Viva has developed a high confidence level gold Mineral

Resource and can demonstrate the potential for an economically viable open pit, heap leach/mill gold

project through rigorous PEA study. The Project enjoys paved highway access, and proximity to Nevada

grid power, commercial water supply, and a vast local vendor network for sourcing required mining project

consumables and equipment.

Tonopah is a near surface, well oxidized, epithermal gold/silver deposit with gold mineralization occurring

in higher-grade veins and brecchias, all within a blanket of low -grade disseminated gold mineralization.

Drill results demonstrate the potential for additional exploration potential, while the core Mineral

Resource has been drilled to a high confidence level with approximately 87% of total contained gold

ounces in the M&I resource category. The Project is located on 508 unpatented federal lode claims.

The PEA study was developed using conventional open pit hard rock mining methods at a nominal rate of

approximately 45,000 tonnes per day (“TPD”) of material mined over a seven-year period. Pit slope angles

are based on geotechnical study completed for Viva in 2020. Mined gold mineralization is transported by

truck to either a high-grade (> 1.0 g/t) or low-grade stockpile. Barren waste rock would go to a waste rock

storage facility.

Process design was developed based on preliminary indicative metallurgical testwork. The process

considers crushing 10,000 TPD of mineralized run-of-mine material including 8,000 TPD of low-grade

and 2,000 TPD of high-grade material. Mineralized material will be crushed to 100% passing 12.5 mm

using a three-stage closed crushing circuit. High-grade and low-grade material will be campaigned through

the crushing circuit and stockpiled separately using a radial stacking conveyor. Low-grade material will be

agglomerated with cement, before being conveyor -stacked in 10m lifts onto a permanent geomembrane -

lined heap leach pad and leached with a dilute cyanide solution. Pregnant leach solutions will be pumped

to a carbon adsorption circuit. Gold will be collected onto activated carbon and then periodically transported

off-site to be toll-processed where the loaded carbon will be stripped and regenerated before being returned

to the Project for re-use.

High-grade mill feed ground to 80% passing 150 Mesh (106 micron) in a single stage ball mill circuit. Ball

mill discharge will be diverted to a Carbon-in-Leach (“CIL”) circuit where the thickened slurry will be

mixed with activated carbon with a portion of the flow being diverted to a gravity concentrator for the

recovery of coarse metal. Loaded carbon from the CIL will be toll -processed along with carbon from the

heap leach circuit. Leached slurry will be discharged and filtered using a filter press, and dry-stacked using

trucks onto a dedicated portion of the heap leach pad.

The Tonopah open pit will extend below the existing water table. As a result, a pit de -watering system is

required to de-water ahead of mining advance. A conceptual dewatering system design for the Project was

developed by Piteau Associates of Reno, Nevada, Viva’s long term hydrologic consultant, dated June 20,

2025.

Existing project infrastructure includes paved State highway access, nearby 15 KV grid powerline

upgradable to 25 KV, newly constructed cell and data communications tower , and nearby public utility

water supply. The project has a total of 26 existing groundwater monitoring wells. Additional infrastructure

will include fencing and gat es, weigh scale, office buildings, repair shops, assay laboratory, fencing and

gates, water supply system, power substation and overhead distribution lines.

Mineral Resource

The 2025 MRE incorporates data from 59 new drill holes completed since 2022, as well as a new structural

model based on drilling and Controlled Source Audio -frequency Magnetotellurics (CSAMT) data. The

updated resource model has resulted in an increase in the indicated resource, demonstrating enhanced

confidence in the geologic interpretation.

Table 1: Summary of Estimated Mineral Resources – Effective Date: June 13, 2025

Classification Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Tonnes

(Kt)

Contained

Gold (oz/t)

Contained

Silver (oz/t)

Measured 1.41 3.11 1,690 77,000 169,000

Indicated 0.53 1.98 25,000 427,000 1,593,000

Measured + Indicated 0.59 2.05 26,690 504,000 1,762,000

Inferred 0.37 1.81 6,905 83,000 402,000

Total 0.54 2.00 33,560 587,000 2,164,000

Notes:

1. The MRE for the potentially surface mineable resource were constrained by conceptual pit shells for the purpose of establishing

reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction based on potential mining, metallurgical and processing grade parameters

identified by studies performed to date on the Project.

2. Key constraint inputs included reasonable assumptions for operating costs, geotechnical slope parameters, forecast Au prices, and a

minimum Cut-off Grade of 0.15 g/t Au.

3. The Cut-off Grade assumes a gold price of US$2,200 and a revenue factor of 1.2 (equivalent to US$2,640 gold price), and includes all

material that can be economically processed

4. Heap leach recovery of 75% was assumed.

5. Tonnage and contained metal estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

6. kt = kilotonnes; g/t = grams per tonne; oz/t = troy ounces per tonne.

7. Mineral Resource categorization of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources presented in the summary table is in accordance

with the CIM definition standards (CIMDS, 2014).

8. No mining recovery, dilution or other similar mining parameters have been applied.

9. Although the Mineral Resources presented in this press release are believed to have a reasonable expectation of being extract ed

economically, they are not Mineral Reserves. Estimation of Mineral Reserves requires the application of modifying factors and a

minimum of a PFS.

10. The reported Inferred Mineral Resources are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations appli ed to

them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves.

11. There is no certainty that all or any part of this Mineral Resource will be converted into Mineral Reserve.

12. Mineral Resource estimates are not precise calculations, being dependent on the interpretation of limited information on the location,

shape and continuity of the occurrence and on the available sampling results. All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of

the estimates.

The Mineral Resource categorization applied by the Qualified Person (“QP”) has included the consideration

of data reliability, spatial distribution and abundance of data and continuity of geology and grade

parameters. The QP performed a statistical and geostatistical analysis for evaluating the confidence of

continuity of the ge ological units and grade parameters. The results of this analysis were applied to

developing the Mineral Resource categorization criteria.

The updated MRE reports 504,000 ounces of measured and indicated gold resources at 0.59 g/t Au,

constrained within a pit shell above a 0.15 g/t Au cut-off (see Table 1). Compared to the 2022 PEA, this is

an increase of 109,000 ounces of measured and indicated Mineral Resources, and a reduction of 123,000

ounces of inferred Mineral Resources. Additional drilling reduced drill hole spacing and revealed new

high-grade zones as well as non-mineralized areas. The introduction of a structural interpretation served to

constrain the estimate to additional hard-boundary domains. For the first time, 2,164,000 ounces of silver

at 2.0 g/t are reported.

Au and Ag were estimated into a 3D block model using ordinary kriging interpolation. The block size in

the area of the reported resources is 6 m x 6 m x 6 m. Estimation was constrained by hard boundary domains

based on rock type and fault boundaries.

Primary differences between the 2022 resource block model and the 2025 resource block model include a

reduction in block size from 20 m to 6 m, a change in the Au top-cut grade parameters (increased from 10

g/t to 100 g/t and using a high -grade search restriction), and a change to the resource classification

methodology.

At present, only Mineral Resources have been estimated and there are no Mineral Reserves for the Project.

The Mineral Resource estimates for the potentially surface mineable resources at Tonopah were constrained

by conceptual resource pit shells for the purpose of establishing reasonable prospects of eventual economic

extraction based on potential mining, meta llurgical recovery and processing parameters identified by

mining, metallurgical, and processing studies performed to date on the Project.

Key constraint inputs included reasonable assumptions for operating costs, geotechnical slope parameters,

Au forecast prices, as summarized in Table 2, resulting in a minimum Cut -off Grade (“COG”) of 0.15 g/t

Au. The COG assumes a gold price of US$2,200 and a revenue factor (“RF”) of 1.2 (equivalent to US$2,640

gold price) and includes all material that can be economically processed.

Table 2: Break-Even Cut-off Grade for Mineral Resources

Parameter Unit Value

Processing Costs (incl. Sustaining Capex) + G&A $/t 7.12

Processing Recovery % 75.0%

Refining Recovery/Payable % 99.9%

Royalty % NSR 1.0%

Refining Cost/Selling Cost $/oz Au 2

Resource Gold Price at RF $/oz Au 2,640

Cut-off grade g/t Au 0.15

GEOVIA Whittle™ (“Whittle”) Pit Optimizer software was used to develop the resource pit shell. Whittle

was used with the input parameters presented in Table 3 to provide guidance for establishing reasonable

prospects of eventual economic extraction.

Table 3: Resource Pit Shell Input Parameters

Mining Parameter Unit Value

Waste Mining Cost1 $/t 1.90

Mineral Mining Cost1 $/t 1.90

Overburden Mining Cost1 $/t 1.60

Mining Sustaining Capital Cost2 $/t 0.24

Mining Recovery3 % 100

Mining Dilution3 % 0

Processing Parameter Unit Value

Mill Recovery % 92.5

Heap Leach Recovery % 75

Mill COG g/t 1.0

Heap Leach COG - breakeven

Mill Processing Cost + G&A $/t 17.50

Mill Processing Sustaining Capital Cost4 $/t 0.11

Heap Leach Processing Cost + G&A $/t 8.70

Heap Leach Processing Sustaining Capital Cost5 $/t 0.62

Selling Parameter Unit Value

Gold Price $/oz 2,640

Gold Royalty % 1.0

Selling Cost $/oz 2.00

Gold Payable % 99.9

Notes:

1. The mineral and waste mining cost were based on escalated mining cost from similar projects in Nevada and nearby

states escalated to Q2 2025 US$ value. The overburden mining cost is the cost of free digging the overburden, without

drilling and blasting.

2. Mining sustaining capital cost of 0.24 $/t was calculated based on the escalated April 2020 PEA cost estimate to Q2 2025

US$ value and was included in the pit optimization to the mining cost.

3. The block model described included dilution or mining recovery. Viva recommended to use 100% mining recovery and

0% dilution, and it is the QP’s opinion that this logic is reasonable for a PEA-level study.

4. Mill processing sustaining capital cost of 0.11 $/t was obtained from the April 2020 PEA cost estimate and escalated to

Q2 2025 US$ value.

5. Heap leach processing sustaining capital cost of 0.62 $/t was obtained from industry benchmarking, and both were

included in the pit optimization to the processing cost for all scenarios.

PEA Mine Plan and Production Details

Tonopah will have a seven-year mine life with eight years of gold recovery. Closure and reclamation

activities are expected to commence at the cessation of mining and last for a period of three years utilizing

exiting mine equipment and personnel. Please note that a Preliminary Economic Assessment is preliminary

in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have

the economic consideration applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves,

and that there is no certainty that the preliminary economic assessment will be realized.

Table 4: Annual Detail of Tonopah PEA Production Schedule

PEA Study Economic Analysis

The PEA economic analysis is b ased on the estimated production schedule, capital costs , and operating

costs, and cash flow model prepared by WSP. All information used in this economic evaluation was derived

from work completed by WSP and KCA, with support from Viva Gold.

Year 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 Total

Mill Tonnes (1,000) 730 730 730 730 612 307 679 4,518

Heap Leach Tonnes (1,000) 2,914 2,856 2,920 2,920 2,920 1,853 2,664 19,046

Waste Tonnes (1,000) 18,350 18,650 12,000 12,000 11,350 13,500 5,714 91,564

Total Tonnes Mined (1,000) 21,994 22,236 15,650 15,650 14,882 15,659 9,058 115,129

Strip Ratio 5.0 5.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 6.3 1.7 3.9

Mill Grade - Au 2.56 2.18 1.41 1.60 1.39 1.22 1.48 1.75

Heap Leach Grade - Au 0.37 0.40 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.37

Mill Grade - Ag 5.39 3.30 2.29 3.08 2.73 2.39 3.62 3.35

Heap Leach Grade - Ag 1.68 1.98 1.67 1.43 1.63 1.61 1.79 1.69

Contained Gold Oz 95,088 87,647 67,256 70,276 62,664 33,488 64,501 480,919

Contained Silver Oz 284,118 259,447 210,455 206,310 206,516 119,395 232,260 1,518,501

Mill Recovered Gold Oz 55,320 47,532 30,412 34,466 25,311 11,151 29,973 234,165

Mill Recovered Silver Oz 46,997 28,574 20,050 27,031 19,865 8,715 29,281 180,513

Heap Leach Rec Gold Oz 22,845 27,174 25,856 24,613 26,256 17,433 23,026 3,128 170,331

Heap Leach Rec Silver Oz 23,074 29,601 30,239 23,517 24,695 17,342 28,732 3,979 181,178

Total Gold Oz 78,164 74,706 56,268 59,079 51,567 28,584 52,999 3,128 404,496

Total Silver Oz 70,071 58,175 50,289 50,548 44,560 26,057 58,012 3,979 361,691

Payable Gold Oz 78,086 74,631 56,211 59,020 51,515 28,555 52,946 3,125 404,091

Payable Silver Oz 68,670 57,012 49,283 49,537 43,669 25,536 56,852 3,899 354,457

Project economics were evaluated using a discounted cash flow method that measures the before -tax and

after-tax NPV of future cash flow streams. The PEA economic model was based on the following key

assumptions:

• A gold price of $2,400 per ounce.

• Mine production schedule developed by WSP with a nominal average mining rate of 45,000

TPD with higher levels in the first two years and a mill and heap leach process rate totaling

10,000 TPD of mineralized material.

• A period of analysis of eleven years that includes one year of investment, 8 years of

production, and three years to complete reclamation and closure commencing after cessation

of mining activities.

• Capital costs as summarized in Table 9 and operating costs as summarized in Table 7 and

described in the following sections.

Project economics are based on criteria from the cash flow model that are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Economic Analysis Summary

Financial parameters Results

Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pre-Tax 20.6%

Internal Rate of Return (IRR), After-Tax 17.6%

Average Annual Cash Flow in Production (Pre-Tax) $56.8 million

NPV 5% (Pre-Tax) $138.6 million

Average Annual Cash Flow in Production (After-Tax) $52.8 million

NPV 5% (After-Tax) $111.6 Million

Gold Price Assumption $2,400/Ounce Au

All-In sustaining Cost $1,164

Cash Cost of Production $1,269

Economic Sensitivity Analysis

At a current market price level of approximately $3,200 per ounce Au, a 33.3% increase over the base price

of $2,400, Tonopah return s a post -tax NPV 5% of $3 63.6 million and an IRR of 43.4%, demonstrating

strong leverage to gold price.

Project sensitivity to Au/Ag price, operating and capital costs are shown in the following Figure 1:

Figure 1: Project Sensitivity to Changes in Price, Capital and Operating Cost

Table 6: Project Sensitivity to Gold Price

Sensitivity to Gold Price Gold Price NPV 5% (xUSD 1,000)

80% 1,920 (38,425)

90% 2,160 36,738

100% 2,400 111,617

110% 2,640 186,451

120% 2,880 261,286

130% 3,120 336,120

140% 3,360 410,955

$(300,000)

$(200,000)

$(100,000)

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

NPV x 1,000

% Parameter variation from base gold price of $2,400

Operating Cost Capital Cost Metal Prices

Operating Costs

Table 7: Unit Operating Cost Breakdown

AREA UNITS COST

Mine $/tonne Material 1.95

CIL Mill $/tonne Milled 16.43

Heap Leach $/tonne Leach 6.62

Water Systems Annual Variable $670K to $1.2K

Gen & Admin Annual $4.4 million

Mine operating costs are based on self-mining, non-contractor rates. Mine operating costs and equipment

productivity rates were estimated from first principals by WSP using equipment productivity handbooks,

reference guides and databased information. The mine is anticipated to operate 365 days per year utilizing

two twelve-hour shift per day , with a total of four operating crews working on a four -day rotational

schedule.

Process costing is based on the processing design criteria shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Processing Design Criteria Summary

Item Design Criteria

Annual Tonnage Processed 3,650,000 tonnes

Production Rate

Crushing Rate 10,000 tonnes/day, 365 days/year

CIL Milling Rate 2,000 tonnes/day, 365 days/year

Leach Pad Stacking Rate 8,000 tonnes/day, 365 days/year

Recovery

High-grade Mill Au Recovery, Average 93%

Low-grade Heap Leach Au Recovery, Average 75%

Operation 12 hours/shift, 2 shifts/day, 7days/week,

365 days/year

Leach Cycle 120 days

Reagents

High-grade Mill NaCN Consumption, kg/t 0.58

Low-grade Heap Leach NaCN Consumption, kg/t 0.26

High-grade Mill CaO Addition, kg/t 0.60

Low-grade Heap Leach Cement Addition, kg/t 4.0

Plant and general and administrative (“G&A”) operating costs were estimated by KCA using first principals

based on the second quarter 2025 US dollars and are presented with no added contingency based upon the

design and operating criteria present in this release and are considered to have an accuracy of +/-35%. Sales

tax was not included in the operating cost estimate. G&A costs include annual premiums for reclamation

surety bonds. Water system costs were estimated by Piteau Associates of Reno Nevada and are estimated

to have an accuracy of +50%/-25%.