Romarco Corporate Presentation - AUGUST 2011


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Romarco Corporate Presentation - AUGUST 2011

  1. 1. Corporate  Presenta,on  August  2011  
  2. 2. Cau,onary  Statement  The information in this document has been prepared as of February 9, 2011. Certain statements contained in this document constitute “forward-looking statements”within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward looking information under the provisions of Canadian provincialsecurities laws. When used in this document, the words “anticipate”, “expect”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “will”, “planned”, and similar expressions are intended toidentify forward-looking statements or information.Specifically, this presentation contains forward looking statements regarding the results and projections contained in the February 2011 technical report of theHaile Gold project, including the expected mine life, recovery, capital costs, cash operating costs and other costs and anticipated production of the described openpit mine, the projected internal rate of return, the projected payback period, the availability of capital for development, sensitivity to metal prices, ore grade, thereserve and resource estimates on the project, the financial analysis, the timing for completion of the revised feasibility study on the Haile Gold project, the timingand amount of future production, the timing of construction of the proposed mine and process facilities, capital and operating expenditures, the timing of the receiptof permits, rights and authorizations, communications with local stakeholders and community relations, availability of financing and any and all other timing,development, operational, financial, economic, legal, regulatory and political factors that may influence future events or conditions and expected drilling activities.In addition, this presentation also contains updated resource estimates contained in the February 2011 technical reports.Scientific and technical information referred herein has been extracted from and are hereby qualified in their entirety by reference to the aforementioned technicalreports (“Technical Reports”). Joshua Snider, P.E., Thomas L. Drielick, P.E., Lee “Pat” Gochnour, M.M.S.A., John Marek, P.E. and Derek Wittwer, P.E. areresponsible for preparing the Technical Reports. Each of the above referenced persons is a “qualified person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 —Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.Such forward‐looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions, including, but not limited in any manner, those disclosed in anyaother of Romarco’s public filings, and include the ultimate determination of mineral reserves and resources, availability and final receipt of required approvals,licenses and permits, sufficient working capital to develop and operate the proposed mine, access to adequate services and supplies, economic conditions,commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, access to capital and debt markets and associated cost of funds, availability of a qualified workforce, lack of social opposition and legal challenges, and the ultimate ability to mine, process and sell mineral products on economically favorable terms. WhileRomarco considers these assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect. Actual results may vary fromsuch forward‐looking information for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to risks and uncertainties disclosed in other Romarco filings at‐looking statements are based upon management’s beliefs, estimate and opinions on the date the statements are made and, other than as required by law,Romarco does not intend, and undertakes no obligation to update any forward‐looking information to reflect, among other things, new information or future eventsCautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources:Certain tables may use the terms “Measured”, “Indicated” and “Inferred” Resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are recognized andrequired by Canadian regulations, however, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred Mineral Resources” have agreat amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred MineralResource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or othereconomic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted intoMineral Reserves. United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of a Mineral Resource is economically or legally mineable.2   All figures are US$ unless otherwise indicated
  3. 3. History  of  Carolina  Gold  Mining  /   Support  for  the  Project  
  4. 4. HAILE  GOLD  MINE  –  Mining  History   CAROLINA  SLATE  BELT   §  First  Gold  rush  before  California  Kentucky   §  Carolinas  led  US  Gold  produc,on  un,l   West  Virginia   1848   §  Second  US  Mint  in  CharloMe,  NC   Tennessee   §  Original  49’ers  came  from  East  Coast   Russell  Mine   §  Significant  gold  produc,on  in  80’s-­‐90’s   Hickory   Ironwood   Reed  Mine   Howie  Mine   §  Mining  part  of  local  history/community     Locust   North  Carolina   §  500  ac,ve  mines  in  South  Carolina  today   Haile  Mine   Brewer  Mine   Bayberry   Buzzard   Ridgeway  Mine   Dorn  Mine   Elm   Magruder  Mine   Bante  Mine   Tathom  Mine   Columbia  Mine   South  Carolina   Georgia  
  5. 5. Located  in  Mining  Friendly  Jurisdic,on   Ongoing  Community  Involvement   §  Romarco  con,nues  to  build  strong  local   rela,onships  and  support   ê  High  local  unemployment   ê  Romarco  hires  locally   • 113  employees  +  30  contractors   ê  $1  million/month  spent  locally   Awards   Strong  Community  Support   From  le(  to  right:   •  2010  OUTSTANDING  BUSINESS  AWARD  presented  to  HAILE  GOLD  MINE   by  Kershaw  Chamber  of  Commerce   •  2011  CITIZEN  OF  THE  YEAR  presented  to  DIANE  GARRETT   by  Kershaw  Chamber  of  Commerce   •  2011  COMMUNITY  CITIZENSHIP  AWARD  presented  to  DAVID  THOMAS   by  Mining  Associa:on  of  South  Carolina    5  
  6. 6. Romarco  Overview  
  7. 7. Romarco  –  Company  Overview   Company  Descrip,on   § Romarco  is  a  gold  development  company  focused   Project  Loca,on   on  produc,on  primarily  in  the  U.S.   NORTH Charlotte § The  Company’s  flagship  project  is  the  Haile  Gold   CAROLINA Mine  in  South  Carolina   Haile Mine Myrtle ê  Feasibility  study  completed   SOUTH Columbia Beach ê  Permits  pending   CAROLINA ê  System  remains  open  in  all  direcOons  at  depth   § Experienced  board,  management  &  technical  team   Capitaliza,on  Summary   GEORGIA Atlantic Ocean Exchange/  Symbol   TSX:R   Share  Price(1)   C$1.64   Shares  Outstanding  (Basic)   503.3M   •  Romarco  controls  11,000+  acres  of   FD  Shares  Outstanding  (TSM)(2)   520.7M   100%  private  land   Market  CapitalizaOon(1)   C$825M   •  Surface,  mineral  and  water  rights   52  Week  High  /  Low(1)   C$2.88  /  C$1.30   •  ~  9,900  acres  owned  fee  simple   Cash  Balance  (June  30,  2011)   US$63M   (1)  As  at  close  on  June  30,  2011   (2)  Calculated  using  treasury  stock  method.  Includes  5.6mm  “in-­‐the-­‐money”  op:ons  at  an   average  strike  price  of  C$0.53  as  of  June  30,  2011  7   181  Bay  St.  Suite  3630,  Toronto,  ON,  M5J  2T3  │Email:  │Office:  416.367.5500  │Fax:    416.367.5505    │Website:  
  8. 8. Strong  Board,  Management  and  Technical  Team   §  Proven  gold  mine  development,  finance,  perming  and  opera,ons  experience   ê  Romarco  has  the  team  in  place  to  bring  Haile  into  producOon   Experienced  Board  of  Directors   Strong  Management  &  Technical  Team   Edward  A.  van  Ginkel,  Chairman   Diane  R.  GarreM,  Ph.D.,  President  &  CEO   §  Consultant,  former  Noranda,  Dayton  Mining   §  Former  Dayton  Mining,  US  Global  Investors   Diane  R.  GarreM   James  R.  Arnold,  Sr.  VP,  COO   §  Former  Dayton  Mining,  US  Global  Investors   §  Former  Freeport,  Gold  Fields  –  Richards  Award  Winner   James  R.  Arnold   Stan  Rideout,  Sr.  VP,  CFO   §  Former  Freeport,  Gold  Fields  –  Richards  Award  Winner   §  Former  Phelps  Dodge   Leendert  Krol   James  Berry,  Chief  Geologist  &  Regional  Explora,on  Manager   §  Former  Brazuro,  Newmont   §  Former  Barrick   Don  MacDonald   Brent  Anderson,  Mine  Manager   §  CFO  QuadraFNX,  former  NovaGold,  DeBeers,  Dayton  Mining   §  Former  Quadra,  Freeport   John  Marsden   Kevin  Russell,  Regional  Geologist   §  Consultant,  former  Freeport  –  Richards  Award  Winner   §  Former  Barrick   Patrick  Michaels   Jim  Wickens,  Process  Manager   §  Porgolio  Manager  –  Zuri-­‐invest,  Switzerland   §  Former  Barrick   Robert  van  Doorn   OM  Jackson,  Health  &  Safety   §  Former  Mundoro,  Rio  Narcea,  Morgan  Stanley   §  Former  Freeport   Johnny  Pappas,  Director  of  Environmental  Affairs   §  Former  Freeport   Ramona  Schneider,  Environmental  Manager   §  Former  Kinross   Dan  Symons,  Manager  Investor  Rela,ons   §  Former  Renmark  Financial  8  
  9. 9. Introduc,on  to  the  Haile    Gold  Mine  Project   FEBRUARY 2011 §  Feasibility completed $275 million §  One of lowest capital cost projects in industry $379/oz §  One of lowest operating cost projects in industry ($347/oz first 5 years) 2.06 g/t §  One of highest grade open-pit projects in industry9  
  10. 10. Low  Capital  Cost   Development  Capex  for  Primary  Open  Pit  Asset  (US$mm)  (1)   *  All  figures  are  in  millions  of  dollars   (1)    Source:  Company  Disclosure  10   Peers  include  direct  and  indirect  costs,  con:ngency  funding  and  previously  sunk  development  capital  (sustaining  capital  not  included)    
  11. 11. Low  Cash  Cost   $600! LOWEST QUARTILE AVERAGE CASH $559! COST IN 2010 (1) $500! $379! $426! $400! $300! $200! $100! $0! Industry Average (1) ROMARCO Lowest Quartile (1) LOM Average (2) (1)  Source:  GFMS  presenta:on,  Gold  Survey  2010  Update  11   (2)  Announced  February  9,  2011  
  12. 12. High  Reserve  Grade  for  Open  Pit   Reserve  Grade  for  Primary  Open  Pit  Asset  (g/t  Au)  (1)   (1)    Source:  BMO  Capital  Markets  12    
  13. 13. Environmental  /  Perming  
  14. 14. Environmental  Opera,ons  Team   Consultants   •  Gochnour    Associates   Pat  Gochnour   •  Kennedy  ConsulMng  Services   Craig  Kennedy   •  AMEC  Earth  and  Environmental   JIM  ARNOLD   JOHNNY  PAPPAS   RAMONA  SCHNEIDER   •  Tetra  Tech   Sr.  VP.,  COO    Director   Director  of  Environmental  Affairs   Environmental  Manager   •  Schlumberger  Water  Services   P.E.,  B.Sc.  Metallurgical  Engineering        James  R.  Arnold  is  the  current  Senior  Vice   •  Schafer  Limited   Johnny  Pappas  has  a  disOnguished  career   Ramona  Schneider  has  been  with  the   President  and  Chief  OperaOng  Officer  of   in  the  field  of  environmental  management   Haile  Gold  Mine  since  1990  working  for   •  Arcadis   Romarco.  Mr.  Arnold  was  recently  Vice   and  perminng.  Mr.  Pappas  recently  held   Piedmont  Mining  Company,  AMAX  Gold,   President,  Colorado  OperaOons  for  Freeport-­‐ the  posiOon  of  Environmental  Manager  of   and  Kinross  Gold.  As  Environmental   •  Genesis  ConsulMng  Group   McMoRan  where  he  led  the  Climax  re-­‐start   the  Climax  Mine  and  was  Permit   Manager,  Ms.  Schneider  is  responsible  for   project  through  feasibility,  engineering,   Coordinator  for  Barrick’s  Cortez  Gold   •  Ecological  Resources  Consultants   staffing  and  construcOon.  Prior  to  there  he   perminng,  maintaining  current  permits   Mines.  In  addiOon,  he  has  held  several   and  regulatory  compliance,  organizing   •  Environmental  Banc  and  Exchange   was  V.P.  Technical  Services  for  Coeur   Senior  Environmental  Engineer  posiOons   closure  sampling  programs,  preparing   d’Alene  Mines  Corp.  and  also  held  the   (EBX)   with  Pacificorp,  Plateau  Mining,  and  Santa   regulatory  reporOng  documents,   posiOon  of  General  Manager  for  Kinross’   Fe  Pacific  Gold.  Mr.  Pappas  is  recognized   Goldbanks  Project  and  Manager  of  Santa  Fe   monitoring  reclamaOon  projects,  and   •  McNair  Law  Firm   Pacific  Gold’s  Twin  Creeks  project  in  Nevada.   as  a  leader  in  his  field  and  has  won   managing  the  baseline  programs.   Mr.  Arnold  holds  a  degree  in  Metallurgical   numerous  awards  including  the  2003   •  C.A.  Clark  ConsulMng,  LLC   Engineering  from  University  of  Idaho  and  an   “Best  of  the  Best”  Award  –  awarded  by   Catherine  Clark   M.S.  degree  in  Engineering  Management.   the  Department  of  Interior’s  Office  of   Surface  Mining  in  recogniOon  for   extraordinary  personal  commitment  and   outstanding  contribuOon  for  the   reclamaOon  success  at  the  Castle  Gate   Mine  and  the  2003  “Excellence  in  Surface   Coal  Mining  ReclamaOon”  Award.  14  
  15. 15. Environmental  Impact  Statement  Process   §  EIS  is  common  place  in  mining   §  No,ce  of  Intent  to  prepare  an  EIS  published  in  the  Federal  Register   §  90  day  public  comment  period   §  Agency  and  public  scoping  mee,ng  –  one  or  more   §  Dran  EIS   §  90  day  public  review  and  comment  period   §  Romarco  responds  to  comments   §  Final  EIS  includes  comments,  amendments  if  necessary   §  30  day  minimum  comment  period   §  Record  of  Decision  (ROD)  15  
  16. 16. EIS  Posi,ves   §  Eliminates  poten,al  challenge  to  EA  decision     §  Approximate  12  month  delay  of  start-­‐up   §  Analysts  es,mate  4-­‐12%  NAV  impact  to  project  due  to  cash  flow  ,ming   §  Explora,on  con,nues   ê PotenOal  to  increase  reserves  and  grade   ê Reduce  strip  raOo   ê  Further  define  mineralizaOon  between  deposits   ê AddiOonal  Ome  to  opOmize  mine  plan  with  new  resources    reserve  model   ê  Within  exisOng  permit  area  and  7,000  tpd  mill   ê More  Ome  to  define  and  study  underground  targets   §  More  ,me  to  value  engineer  plant  design  16  
  17. 17. EIS  Decision  Drivers   §  Large  volumes  of  technical  data  submiMed  by  Romarco   ê WETLANDS   ê  Avoidance    minimizaOon   ê  Studies  completed   ê  Minor  modificaOons  may  occur   ê  TAILINGS  SITE  FACILITY   ê  Leak  detecOon  system   ê  CN  Distruct  Circuit   ê  Any  potenOal  wildlife  issues   ê  Studies  completed   ê  CUMULATIVE  IMPACTS  17  
  18. 18. EIS  Decision  Drivers   §  No  ,me  has  been  lost   §  All  review  and  comment  periods  since  January  2011  were  a   required  process  for  both  EIS  and  EA   §  Addi,onal  dollar  costs  associated  with  EIS   ê  $2  million   ê  Consultants  legal   §  Next  Steps:   ê  SelecOon  of  contractor   ê  Preparing  schedule   ê  Begin  scoping  work  18  
  19. 19. Streams  Mi,ga,on  Plan  SubmiMed   §  38,775  linear  feet  of  streams  impacted  (296,396  stream  credits*)   •   MiOgaOon  Plan:      68,271  linear  feet  of  streams  Restored      151,692  linear  feet  of  streams  Preserved      219,963  linear  feet  of  streams  MiOgated     §  314,646  total  stream  credits  (106%)   §  MiOgaOng  567%  of  impact   * Credits are determined in accordance with USACE’s procedures 19  
  20. 20. Wetlands  Mi,ga,on  Plan  SubmiMed   §  161  acres  of  wetlands  impacted  (1,842  credits*)   • MiOgaOon  plan  submiwed  (credit  for  credit)    MiOgaOon  Plan:      297  acres  Restored      621  acres  Preserved      918  acres  MiOgated   §  1,932  acres  total  credits  (105%)   §  MiOgaOng  571%  of  impact   * Credits are determined in accordance with USACE’s procedures 20  
  21. 21. Wetlands  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Palustrine  Emergent  Wetland  21  
  22. 22. Wetlands  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Palustrine  Forested  Wetland  (saturated)  22  
  23. 23. Wetlands  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Palustrine  Forested  Wetland  (inundated)  23  
  24. 24. Streams  at  Haile  Property   Non-­‐RelaOvely  Permanent  Waters  (intermiwent  stream  channel)  24  
  25. 25. Streams  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Riverine  (stream  channel)  25  
  26. 26. Clear  Plan  to  Bring  Haile  Into  Produc,on   §  Strong  balance  sheet  with  approximately  $63M  in  cash  and  no  debt(1)   §  Well  defined  project  schedules  and  clear  development  milestones   Project  Schedule  for  EIS   Haile  Milestones  and  Status  Report   2011   2012   2013   2014   Milestone  /  AcOvity   Status   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Complete  feasibility  study   P   Feasibility  Study   State  operaOng  permit   P   OpOmizaOon   submiwed   Perminng   401/404  permit  submiwed   P   ConstrucOon   Resource  /  reserve  report   P   ProducOon   Expand  Haile    Horseshoe   2011   ExploraOon   Acquire  other  properOes   2011   Explore  regional  targets   2011  26   (1)  As  at  June  30,  2011  
  27. 27. Explora,on  Upside  
  28. 28. Significant  Remaining  Explora,on  Upside  Poten,al   §  2010  drill  program  of  108,000m  confirmed  resource  at  Haile  remains  open  along   strike  and  at  depth   ê  40%  of  2010  drilling  focused  on  condemnaOon  drilling  to  locate  suitable  tailings  site   #!!$!!! ()$$$% §  MI resources increased 44% (!$!!! §  MI grade increased 21% (to 1.82 g/t) (!$!!! §  MI tonnes increased 20% 2010 §  Inferred resources declined 46% (%!$!!! Highlights ê  Conversion to indicated *+,+-.%/0%1-233245% (#!$!!! §  Inferred grade increased 33% (to 1.34 g/t) ($!$$$% §  2P reserves increased 54% (!!$!!! $$$% !$!!! !$!!! %!$!!! #!$!!! !#$$% ! 2008   2009   2010   2011  28  
  29. 29. Significant  Remaining  Explora,on  Upside  Poten,al   2010  Explora,on  Findings   Upside  From  Mineraliza,on  Not  Captured   §  Confirms underground potential §  Zone not yet drill defined along strike and Horseshoe Deep down dip §  Highest grade Horseshoe Discovery §  Potential new zone may exist south of §  Underground economic study (2011) Zone main Horseshoe/Snake trend §  Extending to west and south §  Mineralization encountered in down dip South Pit §  Higher grades encountered Snake extensions of Snake deposit Deep §  Areas lie beneath the resource shell Zone §  Additional drilling is planned §  Extending to west and at depth Ledbetter §  Higher grades §  Drill hole intercepts lie below the resource Mustang shell §  Extending at depth §  Additional drilling is planned Snake §  Higher grades Haile §  Remains open §  Strike extends beyond the resource shell Mill Zone Corridor §  Connecting Horseshoe §  Step-out drilling is planned to test extent29  
  31. 31. New  Regional  Explora,on  Targets  §  3  in  South  Carolina   ê  Bayberry  –  currently  drilling   Kentucky   ê  Similar  host  rocks,  alteraOon  and  mineralizaOon  as   West  Virginia   observed  at  Haile   ê  74  shallow  rotary  holes,  8  RC  holes,  and  8  core  holes   previously  drilled  on  the  property   Tennessee   ê  Historical  Reported,  highlighted  intercepts  include:   ê  7.0  meters  of  4.3  g/t   ê  26.0  meters  of  1.8  g/t   ê  12.0  meters  of  1.2  g/t   ê  7.3  meters  of  1.8  g/t   Hickory   Ironwood     ê  Locust  –  drill  ready   Locust   North  Carolina   ê  Small  historical  oxide  resource  (pre  43-­‐101)   Haile  Mine   ê  34  RC  and  27  core  holes  have  been  drilled  on  the   Bayberry   Buzzard   property   Elm   ê  Historical  Reported,  highlighted  intercepts  include:   ê  71.5  meters  of  2.9  g/t   ê  5.1  meters  of  1.5    g/t   ê  74.6  meters  of  1.5    g/t   South  Carolina   ê  65.0  meters  of  1.9    g/t   ê  Elm   Georgia   ê  Property  is  ready  for  soil  and  rock  chip  sampling   ê  Preliminary  rock  chip  sampling  has  yielded  8.6  g/t      31  
  32. 32. New  Regional  Explora,on  Targets  §  2  in  North  Carolina   ê  Hickory  –  mobilizing  rig   Kentucky   ê  Historical  producOon  during  1800s   West  Virginia   ê  Historical  drilling  consists  of  11  core  holes  and  130   RC  holes   ê  Historical  Reported,  highlighted  intercepts  include:   Tennessee   ê  19.8  meters  of  4.7  g/t   ê  21.3  meters  of  4.0  g/t   ê  22.9  meters  of  3.4  g/t   ê  17.0  meters  of  2.1  g/t     Hickory   Ironwood   ê  Ironwood  –  drill  ready   North  Carolina   ê  The  highest  grade  encountered  in  the  trenching  was   Locust   9.1  g/t   Haile  Mine   Bayberry   Buzzard   ê  Twelve  shallow  RC  holes  and    two  core  holes  have   been  drilled     Elm   ê  Historical  Reported,  highlighted  intercepts  include:   ê  3.0  meters  of  4.4  g/t     South  Carolina   Georgia  32  
  33. 33. Feasibility  
  34. 34. Near  Term,  Low  Cost  Gold  Producer   §  Posi,ve  feasibility  study  on  Haile   Summary  of  Haile  Feasibility  Study  (US$950  Gold)   announced  on  Feb.  9,  2011   2  P  Gold  Reserves  ( 000  oz)   2,018   §  Strong  project  economics  with  robust   Recovery  Rate  (%)   83.7   IRR  and  NPV  at  conserva,ve  gold   Net  Recoverable  Gold  ( 000  oz)   1,681   prices   Annual  Mill  Throughput  ( 000  t)   2,555   ê  Low  cash  cost  operaOon   Daily  Mill  Throughput  (tpd)   7,000   ê  Manageable,  low  cost  capital  requirements   Mine  Life  (years)   13.25   §  Posi,ve  feasibility  study  does  not   Overall  Strip  RaOo  (waste:ore)   7.2:1   include   Average  Feed  Grade  to  Mill  (LOM)  (g/t)   2.06   ê  Horseshoe   Average  ProducOon  (year  1)  ( 000  oz)   172   ê  Snake  Deep   Average  ProducOon  (years  1  -­‐  5)  ( 000  oz)   150   ê  Mustang   Cash  Costs  (year  1-­‐5)  (US$/oz)   347   ê  Mill  Zone  extensions   Cash  Costs  (LOM)  (US$/oz)   379   ê  601   IniOal  Capital  Expenditures  (US$M)   275.5   ê  Inferred  resources  within  US$950  Pit   Sustaining  Capital  Expenditures  (US$M)   119.2   Net  Present  Value  (5%  discount)   §  Open  all  direc,ons  and  at  depth   Pre-­‐Tax  (US$M)   279   §  2011  economic  studies   Internal  Rate  of  Return   ê  Underground  PEA   Pre-­‐Tax  (%)   19.6  34  
  35. 35. NPV    IRR  Sensi,vity  to  Gold  Price     Pre-­‐tax  NPV  and  IRR  Sensi,vity  to  Gold  Price  (1)   ($  Millions,  except  gold  price)   Gold  Price   PAYBACK   NPV  @0%   NPV  @  5%   NPV  @  10%   IRR  %   Per  oz.   YEARS   $2000   $2,261   $1,521   $1,058   69.3%   1.4   $1900   $2,094   $1,403   $970   64.9%   1.5   $1800   $1,927   $1,285   $883   60.5%   1.6   $1700   $1,760   $1,166   $796   56.1%   1.7   $1600   $1,593   $1,048   $708   51.6%   1.8   $1500   $1,426   $930   $621   47.0%   2.0   $1400   $1,259   $811   $534   42.3%   2.2   $1300   $1,092   $693   $447   37.6%   2.4   $1200   $925   $575   $359   32.7%   2.7   $1100   $758   $457   $272   27.6%   3.1   $1000   $591   $339   $185   22.3%   3.8   $950   $507   $279   $141   19.6%   4.2   $800   $257   $102   $10   10.7%   7.6   $700   $90   ($16)   ($77)   4.0%   9.4   (1) As per parameters used in February 9, 2011 Feasibility Technical Report35  
  36. 36. Clear  Plan  to  Bring  Haile  Into  Produc,on   Design  Overflow    Process  Descrip,on   §  Conven,onal  opera,on   Design  Overflow   Process  Descrip,on   §  Simple  flowsheet   § Robust  “Simple”   §  Off-­‐the-­‐shelf   Crush    Grind    Flota,on   Flowsheet   technology   § Proven  Technologies   Regrind  Flot  Con    Leach  Con   §  Ability  to  expand   project  scale  to  include   § Flexible,  Expandable   Leach  Flot  Tail    Recover  both   addi,onal  resource   discoveries   § Non-­‐Refractory   CN  Detox    Tail  Storage  Facility   § Off-­‐The-­‐Shelf   Standard  Carbon  Elu,ons,  EW   Technology   § No  Long  Lead  Time   Units  36  
  37. 37. Clear  Plan  to  Bring  Haile  Into  Produc,on   Mill  Plant  Facility  Rendering   PRIMARY  CRUSHER   OVERLAND  CONVEYOR   MILL  BUILDING   HAUL  TRUCK   FUELING  STATION   LEACHING   STOCKPILE   TAILING   TRUCK  WASH   ADMINISTRATION   BUILDING  37  
  38. 38. Valua,on  
  39. 39. Analyst  Coverage   §  6  Analysts  Covering  Romarco   ANALYSTS   12  Month  Target  Price   Paradigm  Capital   $3.10   BMO  Capital  Markets   $3.00   GMP  SecuriOes   $2.50   NBF   $2.50   RBC  Capital  Markets   $2.25   CIBC  World  Markets   $1.95  39  
  40. 40. P/NAV  vs  Peer  Group   §  Romarco  trades  at  a  discount  to  its  developer  peers  on  a  P/NAV  basis(1)   July 4, 2011 Romarco Minerals Inc. ! #$%%!()!*+,,-.!/0123!4+5%65-7)!8-,9%.9!:;5!/,;+=-,7! %# %!# $%# !!# !%# !%!# !$%# !!!# ()*+,-./*0 1*+/*) 234)536+ 738).93 5:;)*) :.3-=)* 8=.0/*0 ?.=6)@*=; 7)/*; 5.=;,A). 5)B./=6 21C?/=.CDDD F=A3:. 21C?/=.CDD 536+/=6+, 56+6+, 140 7/4=. 7=, E.3+C140 536+ E.3+C140 (3:.9=GC7HICI)-/A)6CJ).K=A,CD*9C #$%%!)!?;,-=@7!A6-,@%;.7)!B@%5-!4%.-!/,;C-=! 300,000 $600 Source: RBC Capital Markets Inc., as at July 5, 201140   250,000 $500 S$/oz) (oz) 200,000 $400
  41. 41. EV / Oz (US$/o P/NAV  vs  Peer  Group   5.0 $150 5.0 5.0 Detour 5.0 Keegan Detour Total Resources Fronteer Geography Keegan 4.5 Goldstone Fronteer 4.5 4.5 Fronteer 4.5 $100 Tower Hill Int. Goldstone Orezone Victoria Russia, E. Europe, BC, Alaska, Ontario, Quebec, Chile, Australia, West/South Int. Tower Hill 50 Mozs 20 Mozs 10 Mozs 5 Mozs N. Africa Other Nevada, Brazil, Guyana Africa, Mexico 4.0 Orezone Victoria 4.0 1.5x 4.0 Grayd Volta Resources Belo Sun 4.0 Amarillo Riverstone Resourcese Patch Grayd 3.5 $50 Exeter Volta Resources Belo Sun Average EV / In Situ Oz (US$ 000s): $97/oz 3.5 Pediment Midway Amarillo Cassidy 3.5 Northern Freegold Vior Riverstone Resources PMI Rye Patch Temex Exeter 1.3x 3.0 Northern Gold Pediment Midway Cassidy Gold Grade (g/t) Vior PMI 3.5 3.0 3.0 Northern Freegold Coral 0.8 1.3 1.8 Temex 2.3 Gold Grade (g/t) Andina Northern Gold Detour Gold 2.5 $0 Gold Grade (g/t) Gold Grade (g/t) Coral 2.0 2.5 2.5 Gabriel 0.3 1.1x Andina 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.0 Gold Grade (g/t) 3.0 P / NAV Greystar Rainy River Gold Grade (g/t) 1.5 Trelawney 0.9x 1.52.0 Average P / NAV: 0.8x 2.5 Guyana GF 1.0 European Goldfields 1.5 Romarco 1.0 0.5 0.7x Andina 2.0 NovaGold 0.0 1.0 Premier Gold 2.0 4.0 6.0 0.5 200 150 100 50 0 0.5x AMC / Oz (US$/oz) 0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0 0.0 0.5 EV / In Situ (US$ 000s / oz) 1.5 200 150 100 50 0 Source: RBC Equity Research, Company Information as at July 5, 2011 41   Note: Average figures include Romarco AMC / Oz (US$/oz) 0.0 0 50 00 50 00
  42. 42. Summary   §  Near  term,  low  cost  gold  producer  with  strong  project  economics   §  Located  in  a  mining  friendly  jurisdicOon  with  excellent  infrastructure   §  Large  resource  with  significant  remaining  exploraOon  upside  potenOal   §  Strong  board,  management  and  technical  team   §  Clean  plan  to  bring  Haile  into  producOon   §  Solid  cash  posiOon  (~  US$63  million),  no  debt  –  as  of  June  30,  2011   §  11  drill  rigs  –  172,000  meters  drilling  scheduled  for  2011  (~US$30  million)   §  Haile  system  remains  open  in  all  direcOons  at  depth  42  
  43. 43. Contact  Informa,on   Head  Office  Informa,on   Dan  Symons   Romarco  Minerals  Inc.   Manager,  Investor  RelaOons   Brookfield  Place   181  Bay  Street,  Suite  3630   Toronto,  Ontario  M5J  2T3   Tel:  416.367.5500   Fax:  416.367.5505   Email:   Website:  43