January 2012 presentation_january_8_handouts

1,081 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,081
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
705
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

January 2012 presentation_january_8_handouts

  1. 1. January 2012
  2. 2. DISCLAIMER Forward Looking Information This Presentation contains ‘‘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 may include, but is not limited to, information with respect to the anticipated production and developments in our operations in future periods, our planned exploration and development activities, the adequacy of our financial resources, the estimation of mineral resources, realization of mineral resource estimates, costs and timing of development of the projects we currently intend to acquire (the “Projects”), costs and timing of future exploration, results of future exploration and drilling, timing and receipt of approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation, our executive compensation approach and practice, the composition of our board of directors and committees, and adequacy of financial resources. Wherever possible, words such as ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘expects’’ or ‘‘does not expect’’, ‘‘budget’’, ‘‘scheduled’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘forecasts’’, ‘‘anticipate’’ or ‘‘does not anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘intend’’ and similar expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, have been used to identify forward-looking information. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that will be encountered if the property is developed. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as ‘‘expects’’, ‘‘anticipates’’, ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘projects’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘assumes’’, ‘‘intends’’, ‘‘strategy’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘potential’’ or variations thereof, or stating that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking information. Many of these risks are listed and described in our final short-form prospectus dated April 4, 2011 (the “Prospectus”), which is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under our profile. Although we have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Forward-looking information involves statements about the future and is inherently uncertain, and our actual achievements or other future events or conditions may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking information due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, including, without limitation, those referred to in the Prospectus under the heading ‘‘Risk Factors’’. Our forward-looking information is based on the beliefs, expectations and opinions of management on the date the statements are made, and we do not assume any obligation to update forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law. For the reasons set forth above, prospective investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. National Instrument 43-101 Technical and scientific information contained herein relating to the Projects is derived from National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) compliant technical reports “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Snowfield Property” and “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Brucejack Property” dated February 18, 2011, a preliminary economic assessment entitled ‘‘Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Snowfield Brucejack Project’’ dated October 28, 2010 (the “Preliminary Assessment”) and a preliminary economic assessment dated June 3, 2011 on the Brucejack Project. We have filed the Technical Reports and Preliminary Assessment under our profile at www.sedar.com. Technical and scientific information not contained within the Preliminary Assessment and Technical Reports for the Projects have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Kenneth C. McNaughton, an independent “qualified person” under NI 43-101. This presentation uses the terms “measured resources”, “indicated resources” (together “M&I”) and “inferred resources”. Although these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations (under NI 43-101), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves. In addition, “inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre feasibility studies, or economic studies, except for a Preliminary Assessment as defined under NI43 101. Investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. U.S. Securities Law Disclaimer Our securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the securities laws of any state of the United States and, subject to certain exceptions, may not be offered or sold within the United States. Investors resident in the United States will be required to acknowledge that the securities are "restricted securities" within the meaning of Rule 144, and that if in the future an investor decides to offer, resell, pledge or otherwise transfer any of the securities, it may do so only (a) to the Corporation; (b) outside the United States in accordance with Rule 904 of Regulation S under the Securities Act and in compliance with applicable Canadian and provincial laws and regulations; (c) within the United States in accordance with Rule 144, if available, and in compliance with any applicable state securities laws of the United States; or (d) in another transaction that does not require registration under the Securities Act or any applicable state securities laws of the United States. Our securities have not been approved or disapproved by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or by any state securities commission or regulatory authority, nor have any of the foregoing authorities passed on the accuracy or adequacy of any offering document provided in connection with the offering of these securities. Currency Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar values herein are in Canadian $. TSX, NYSE:PVG 2
  3. 3. Why ? Brucejack hosts a significant high-grade gold resource: • 5 million ounces Measured & Indicated (9.3 Mt @ 16.62 g/t gold ) • 3 million ounces Inferred (4.0 Mt @ 25.67 g/t gold)  Catalyst for near-term production  Advancing as a stand-alone project Brucejack and Snowfield global gold resources total 66 million ounces within a growing gold camp in northwestern B.C. 3
  4. 4. BRUCEJACK AND SNOWFIELD PROJECTS 4
  5. 5. BRUCEJACK PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Brucejack Gold Resources Growth 80,000 35 70,000 30 Gold resources (mil) 60,000 25 50,000 20 Meters 40,000 15 30,000 10 20,000 10,000 5 0 0 2009 2010 2011 M&I Au Inf Au Meters drilled Exploration resumes. 5.3 km Discovery of Valley of the • Updated PEA on underground Kings Zone. Brucejack high-gradeExploration development of Mine Development Acquisition by Pretivm (Q1) West Zone Certificate issued (December 2010) • Feasibility Study (Q4) 1960-1980 1986-1989 1993 2009-2010 2012 1980-1985 1990 1999-2000 2011 West Zone West Zone Acquisition by • PEA on Brucejack discovery Feasibility Study Silver Standard high-grade (June) and definition completed Resources Inc. • 72,144-meter drill program (May-Oct) • Resource update (November) 5
  6. 6. BRUCEJACK GEOLOGY TSX, NYSE:PVG 6
  7. 7. BRUCEJACK EXPLORATION DRILLINGGold resource: 1980-1994 – Newhawk Valley of the Kings Zone421,000 oz M&I 908 DDH/120,000m82,700 oz Inferred West ZoneGold resource: 2009-2010 – Silver Standard Valley of the Kings Zone8.2M oz M&I 110 DDH/50,946m12.6Moz Inferred Valley of the Kings ZoneGold resource: 2011 – Pretivm12.9M oz M&I 176 DDH/72,144m18.2M oz Inferred 500m >0.3 g/t gold North – South Existing 5km underground workings 500m TSX, NYSE:PVG 7
  8. 8. VISIBLE GOLD SU-260 (2011) 17,750 g/t Au 0.5 m SU-230 (2011) SU-195 (2011) SU-115 (2011) 7,420 g/t Au 5,740 g/t Au 18,755 g/t Au 1.0 m 0.5 m 0.6 m SU-84 (2010) SU-29 (2009) SU-12 (2009) 5,480 g/t Au 5,344 g/t Au 16,948 g/t Au 0.4 m 0.5 m 1.5 m 8
  9. 9. BRUCEJACK NOVEMBER 2011 RESOURCEBrucejack Project 5.0 g/t Grade & Tonnage Estimate – November 2011(1)(2)  29 intercepts grading over 1,000 g/t gold(Based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne) Contained  79 intercepts grading over 100 g/t gold Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver (millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz) Measured 2.4 7.93 236.1 0.60 18.0  97 drill holes /42,000 m for 5.0 g/t resource Indicated 6.9 19.99 60.9 4.46 13.6 M+I 9.3 16.92 105.6 5.06 31.6 Inferred 4.0 25.67 20.6 3.33 2.7 (1)(3)Brucejack Project Underground Sensitivity – November 2011(Based on a cut-off of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne) Contained Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver (millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz) Measured 2.4 7.29 241.2 0.57 18.9 Indicated 6.1 24.13 53.3 4.76 10.5 M+I 8.6 19.35 106.7 5.33 29.4 Inferred 4.0 25.73 22.0 3.29 2.8(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)(2) 5.0 g/t cutoff within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv /tonne optimized pit shell(3) The Underground Sensitivity is a sensitivity study of the Brucejack underground potential and isnot meant to supercede or replace the results of the bulk-tonnage mineral resource estimate. SU-115 intersected gold grading 18,754 gpt over 0.60 metersSensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell. 9
  10. 10. HIGH-GRADE RESOURCE AREAS West Zone VOK Zone 5x5x5 blocks >5.0 g/t AuEq 10
  11. 11. BRUCEJACK DRILLING 11
  12. 12. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE 12
  13. 13. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE 13
  14. 14. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE TSX, NYSE:PVG 14
  15. 15. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE TSX, NYSE:PVG 15
  16. 16. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE TSX, NYSE:PVG 16
  17. 17. VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE TSX, NYSE:PVG 17
  18. 18. WEST ZONEBased on 1980’s/1990’s drilling TSX, NYSE:PVG 18
  19. 19. WEST ZONE TSX, NYSE:PVG 19
  20. 20. BRUCEJACK ENGINEERING STUDIES Advancing Brucejack’s potential for near-term production  June 2011 PEA(1) based on 5.0 g/t cut-off gold resource of 903,000 ounces Measured and Indicated and 1.9 million ounces Inferred: – Average annual production years 1-10 of 173,000 ounces of gold – Capex of US$281.7 million – Operating costs of C$158.36/t milled – 5% NVP of US$1.426 billion(2) – Internal rate of return of 48%(2)  Update to PEA anticipated Q1 2012  Feasibility study anticipated Q4 2012 (1)Source: Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project, effective date June 3, 2011 (2)Spot Price Case metals prices of US$1,536.30/oz gold and US$37.86/oz silver 20
  21. 21. BRUCEJACK HIGH-GRADE COMPARISON 25.0 Brucejack Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Grade (g/t) (2011) 20.0 Kirkland Lake 15.0 Red Lake Brucejack (2010) 10.0 Cerro Negro Jerritt Canyon Eleonore Kensington El Penon Quimsacocha 5.0 Casa Berardi 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Resources (mm oz)Brucejack gold resources based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne within the 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne optimized pit shell.Source: Intierra Ltd. 21
  22. 22. VALUE CREATION: CASE STUDY Andean Resources acquired for $3.6 billion by Goldcorp in Q4 2010 for Cerro Negro Project  At Feasibility-stage with exploration potential  Gold resources at time of acquisition, December 2010: – Indicated Resources of 2.54 million ounces (13.8 million tonnes at 5.71 g/t) • Includes Probable Reserves of 2.07 million ounces at 9.03 g/t Au – Inferred Resources 0.52 million ounces (5.02 million tonnes at 3.24 g/t)  Gold reserves and resources at March 31, 2011 (post acquisition by Goldcorp) – Probable Reserves of 4.26 million ounces (13 million tonnes at 10.19 g/t) – Indicated Resources of 0.38 million ounces (4.67 million tonnes at 2.50 g/t) – Inferred Resources of 0.72 million ounces (4.51 million tonnes at 4.98 g/t) 22
  23. 23. LARGE-SCALE NORTH AMERICAN GOLD PROJECTS 120 Iron Cap Zone (SEA) (NDM) Snowfield Open Pit (September 2010 PA) 100 Mitchell Zone (SEA) Gold Resources (mm oz.) 80 66.9 (PVG) (SEA) Sulphurets Zone 60 12.9 (SEA) Brucejack 18.2 (NG/ABX) 40 45.3 (DGC) (OSK) 37.9 Snowfield 25.9 (ITH) 20 40.4 Kerr Zone 20.5 (SEA) 22.5 15.3 14.5 9.0 4.4 5.1 4.9 0 0.9 Measured + Indicated Resources Inferred Resources 23
  24. 24. BRUCEJACK PROJECT GLOBAL RESOURCE Gold/silver vein systems within lower grade envelopes Mineralization remains open Brucejack Project 1.25 Grade & Tonnage Estimate – November 2011 (1),(2) Contained Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver (millions) (g/t) (g/t) (million oz) (million oz) Measured 9.3 3.08 102.2 0.92 30.6 Indicated 64.8 3.62 23.7 7.53 49.4 M+I 74.1 3.55 33.6 8.46 80.0 Inferred 78.5 2.68 16.3 6.76 41.2 Brucejack Project Bulk-Tonnage Mineral Resource Estimate – (1) November 2011 (Based on a cut-off grade of 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne) Contained Category Tonnes Gold Silver Gold Silver (millions) (g/t) ( g/t) (million oz) (million oz) Measured 12.2 2.50 81.6 0.99 32.1 Indicated 293.0 1.26 10.5 11.91 99.3 M+I 305.3 1.31 13.4 12.89 131.5 Inferred 813.7 0.70 7.7 18.20 201.2(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)(2)@ 1.25 g/t cut-off within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv/tonne optimized pit shell. 24
  25. 25. SNOWFIELD PROJECT  One of the largest undeveloped gold deposits in the world  Joint engineering study underway with Seabridge Gold examining economic synergies of KSM + Snowfield  Joint study anticipated Q1 2012Snowfield Mineral Resource Summary – Feb. 2011(1,2) Grade Contained Metal Tonnes Au Ag Cu Mo Re Au Ag Cu (mm (mm (mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (bil lbs) oz) oz)Measured 189.8 0.82 1.69 0.09% 97.4 0.57 4.98 10.3 0.38Indicated 1,180.3 0.55 1.73 0.10% 83.6 0.50 20.93 65.4 2.60Measured & 1,370.1 0.59 1.72 0.10% 85.5 0.51 25.92 75.8 2.98IndicatedInferred 833.2 0.34 1.90 0.06% 69.5 0.43 9.03 50.9 1.10(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions: Au US$1,025/oz (71%); Ag US$16.60/oz (70%); CuUS$3.0/lb (70%); Mo US$19.00/lb (60%); Re US$145.00/oz. (60%)(2) Mineral resource estimate at 0.30g/t AuEq cut-off. 25
  26. 26. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & SUSTAINABILITY  Pretivm’s Social Responsibility Policy reflects our commitment to establishing positive, trusting relationships with First Nations, local communities and other key stakeholders  We are working to ensure that communication with local communities is open and continuous, and that the benefits of our exploration success can extend to them  We will collaborate with community leaders to explore training and employment opportunities  Pretivm’s management team has been cooperatively engaging with local community leaders in the Stewart, BC region for over 10 years  We have begun the consultation process with community leaders concerning the Brucejack high- grade opportunity 26
  27. 27. PVG SHARE PERFORMANCE Share Return from January 1, 2011 – January 6, 2012 (%) Pretivm Pretivm S&P/TSX Global Mining Index XAU Index 27
  28. 28. SHAREHOLDING & ANALYST COVERAGE Silver Top Five Shareholders(1,3) (shares in millions) Standard, 22% Silver Standard Resources 18.913 Institutions, Royce & Associates 6.346 Management, 50% Carmignac Gestion 5.400 5% Robert Quartermain 2.876 Retail, 23% Norges Bank Investment 2.094Capital Structure(1,2) Analyst CoveragePublic Float 68.0 CIBC Brian QuastSilver Standard Shares 18.9 Citibank Alex HackingTotal Issued & Outstanding Shares 86.9 Cormark Securities Richard GrayIncentive Options 5.2 Dahlman Rose Adam GrafTotal Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding 92.1 GMP Securities Craig West Salman Partners Ash GuglaniWorking Capital (at September 30) C$33.0 million UBS Dan Rollins(1)Assumes the exercise of 5,750,000 share purchase warrants each exercisable to purchase one share of Pretivm owned by Silver Standard at $12.50 until April 7, 2012.(2)As of September 30, 2011; ownership calculated on an undiluted basis.(3)As of January 8. Source: IPREO, SEDI 28
  29. 29. MANAGEMENT & BOARD Robert Quartermain, B.Sc., M.Sc., P.Geo, D.Sc. President & Chief Executive Officer, Director Joseph Ovsenek, B.A. Sc., P.Eng., LLB Vice President & Chief Development Officer, Director Ken McNaughton, M.A. Sc., P.Eng. Vice President & Chief Exploration Officer Ian I Chang, M.A. Sc., P.Eng. Vice President, Project Development (L to R): John Smith, CEO, Silver Standard; Tom Yip, CFO, International Tower Hill Mines; Robert Quartermain; Ross Mitchell, former CFO, Silver Standard Resources Inc; Joseph Ovsenek; Noel Dunn, Managing Director, Liberty Metals & Mining, Liberty Mutual Group Asset Management Ken Konkin, P.Geo. Project Manager Peter de Visser, CA Chief Financial Officer TSX, NYSE:PVG 29(1)All senior management and directors are shareholders of Pretivm
  30. 30. CONTACT HEAD OFFICE COMMON SHARESPhone: 604-558-1784 Pretium Resources Inc. TSX:PVGFax: 604-558-4784 570 Granville St. Issued: 86.9 millionToll-free: 1-877-558-1784 Suite 1600 Fully diluted: 92.0 millioninvest@pretivm.com Vancouver, BC 52-week hi/low:www.pretivm.com Canada V6C 3P1 $14.19/$6.01 Market capitalization (at January 6, 2012) $1.191 billion 30

×