Romarco Corporate Presentation - September 2011

1,958 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,958
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,333
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Romarco Corporate Presentation - September 2011

  1. 1. Corporate  Presenta,on  September  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 www.sedar.com.Forward‐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  /   Community  Involvement  
  4. 4. Local  Community  –  Town  of  Kershaw  4  
  5. 5. 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  CharloPe,  NC   Tennessee   §  Original  49’ers  came  from  East  Coast   Russell  Mine   §  Significant  gold  produc,on  in  80’s-­‐90’s   Hickory   Ironwood   Reed  Mine   §  Mining  part  of  local  history/community     Howie  Mine   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  
  6. 6. 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    6  
  7. 7. Romarco  Overview  
  8. 8. 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$1.47   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$740M   •  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  September  9,  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  8   181  Bay  St.  Suite  3630,  Toronto,  ON,  M5J  2T3  │Email:  info@romarco.com  │Office:  416.367.5500  │Fax:    416.367.5505    │Website:  www.romarco.com  
  9. 9. Strong  Board,  Management  and  Technical  Team   §  Proven  gold  mine  development,  finance,  permi]ng  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.  GarreP,  Ph.D.,  President  &  CEO   §  Consultant,  former  Noranda,  Dayton  Mining   §  Former  Dayton  Mining,  US  Global  Investors   Diane  R.  GarreP   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   OP  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  9  
  10. 10. Resource  Growth   3.5 KM 2 0 1 0 US$950 PITS PLAN VIEW 601 CHAMPION SMALL SOUTH PIT LEDBETTER SNAKE HORSESHOE HAILE LONG SECTION US$950 PIT LIMITS 10  
  11. 11. 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 ($347/oz first 5 years) 2.06 g/t §  One of highest grade open-pit projects in industry11  
  12. 12. Low  Capital  Cost   Development  Capex  for  Primary  Open  Pit  Asset  (US$mm)  (1)   *  All  figures  are  in  millions  of  dollars   (1)    Source:  Company  Disclosure  12   Peers  include  direct  and  indirect  costs,  con:ngency  funding  and  previously  sunk  development  capital  (sustaining  capital  not  included)    
  13. 13. 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  13   (2)  Announced  February  9,  2011  
  14. 14. High  Reserve  Grade  for  Open  Pit   Reserve  Grade  for  Primary  Open  Pit  Asset  (g/t  Au)  (1)   (1)    Source:  BMO  Capital  Markets  14    
  15. 15. Environmental  /  Permi]ng  
  16. 16. 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   •  Venable  LLP   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.  16  
  17. 17. Environmental  Impact  Statement  Process   §  Contractor  (3rd  Party)  Selec,on   §  No,ce  of  Intent  to  prepare  an  EIS  published  in  the  Federal  Register   §  30  day  no,ce  period   §  Public  Scoping  Mee,ng   §  Drap  EIS   §  45  day  public  review  and  comment  period   §  3rd  Party  Contractor  responds  to  comments   §  Final  EIS  includes  comments,  amendments  if  necessary   §  30  day  minimum  comment  period   §  Record  of  Decision  (ROD)  17  
  18. 18. EIS  Posi,ves   §  Eliminates  poten,al  challenge  to  EA  decision     §  Approximate  12  month  delay  of  start-­‐up   §  Explora,on  con,nues   ê PotenOal  to  increase  reserves  and  grade   ê  Further  define  Mustang    underground   ê Reduce  strip  raOo   ê  Further  define  mineralizaOon  between  deposits   ê AddiOonal  Ome  to  opOmize  mine  plan  with  new  resource    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  18  
  19. 19. HGM  Permi]ng   Federal  –  USACE*   State  –  DHEC**   • 404  Wetlands  Permit  only   •  401  Water  Quality   • USACE  is  sole  deciding   CerOficaOon   regulatory  body   •  Mining  Permit   • All  other  agencies  commenOng   •  OperaOng  Permit   agencies  only  –  EPA,  US  Fish   and  Wildlife,  etc.   •  Air  Quality  Permit   •  Others   * US Army Corps of Engineers ** South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 19  
  20. 20. Wetlands  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Palustrine  Emergent  Wetland  20  
  21. 21. Wetlands  at  Haile  Property   Typical  Palustrine  Forested  Wetland  (inundated)  21  
  22. 22. Streams  at  Haile  Property   Non-­‐RelaOvely  Permanent  Waters  (intermisent  stream  channel)  22  
  23. 23. Clear  Plan  to  Bring  Haile  Into  Produc,on   §  Strong  balance  sheet  with  approximately  $63M  in  cash  and  no  debt(1)   §  Well  defined  project  schedules  and  clear  development  milestones   Project  Schedule  for  EIS   Haile  Milestones  and  Status  Report   2011   2012   2013   2014   Milestone  /  AcOvity   Status   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   Complete  feasibility  study   P   Feasibility  Study   State  operaOng  permit   P   OpOmizaOon   submised   Perminng   401/404  permit  submised   P   ConstrucOon   Resource  /  reserve  report   P   ProducOon   Expand  Haile    Horseshoe   2011   ExploraOon   Acquire  other  properOes   2011   Explore  regional  targets   2011  23   (1)  As  at  June  30,  2011  
  24. 24. Explora,on  Upside   Value  Drivers  
  25. 25. Aerial  of  Haile  
  26. 26. Aerial  of  Haile  
  27. 27. Significant  Remaining  Explora,on  Upside  Poten,al   §  2010  drill  program  of  108,000m  confirmed  resource  at  Haile  remains  open  along   strike  and  at  depth   ê  40%  of  2010  drilling  focused  on  condemnaOon  drilling  to  locate  suitable  tailings  site   #!!$!!! ()$$$% §  MI resources increased 44% (!$!!! §  MI grade increased 21% (to 1.82 g/t) (!$!!! §  MI tonnes increased 20% 2010 §  Inferred resources declined 46% (%!$!!! Highlights ê  Conversion to indicated *+,+-.%/0%1-233245% (#!$!!! §  Inferred grade increased 33% (to 1.34 g/t) ($!$$$% §  2P reserves increased 54% (!!$!!! $$$% !$!!! !$!!! %!$!!! #!$!!! !#$$% ! 2008   2009   2010   2011  27  
  28. 28. Significant  Remaining  Explora,on  Upside  Poten,al   HAILE LONG SECTION US$950 PITS 601 CHAMPION SMALL SOUTH PIT LEDBETTER SNAKE HORSESHOE MILL ZONE EXTENSION MUSTANG SNAKE DEEP ZONE US$950 PIT LIMITS DEEP HORSESHOE ZONE 28  
  29. 29. $1200  Resource  Shell   $950  Pit  Feasibility   $1200  Resource  Shell   N29  
  30. 30. New  Regional  Explora,on  Targets  §  3  in  South  Carolina   ê  Bayberry  –  currently  drilling   Kentucky   ê  Similar  host  rocks,  alteraOon  and  mineralizaOon  as   West  Virginia   observed  at  Haile   ê  74  shallow  rotary  holes,  8  RC  holes,  and  8  core  holes   previously  drilled  on  the  property   Tennessee   ê  Locust  –  drill  ready   ê  Small  historical  oxide  resource  (pre  43-­‐101)   ê  34  RC  and  27  core  holes  have  been  drilled  on  the   property   Hickory   Ironwood   ê  Elm   ê  Property  is  ready  for  soil  and  rock  chip  sampling   Locust   North  Carolina   ê  Preliminary  rock  chip  sampling  has  yielded  8.6  g/t     Haile  Mine   Bayberry   Buzzard     Elm   South  Carolina   Georgia  30  
  31. 31. New  Regional  Explora,on  Targets  §  2  in  North  Carolina   ê  Hickory  –  mobilizing  rig   Kentucky   ê  Historical  producOon  during  1800s   West  Virginia   ê  Historical  drilling  consists  of  11  core  holes  and  130   RC  holes     Tennessee   ê  Ironwood  –  drill  ready   ê  The  highest  grade  encountered  in  the  trenching  was   9.1  g/t   ê  Twelve  shallow  RC  holes  and    two  core  holes  have   Hickory   Ironwood   been  drilled       Locust   North  Carolina   Haile  Mine   Bayberry   Buzzard   Elm   South  Carolina   Georgia  31  
  32. 32. Feasibility  
  33. 33. NPV    IRR  Sensi,vity  to  Gold  Price     Pre-­‐tax  NPV  and  IRR  Sensi,vity  to  Gold  Price  (1)   ($  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 Report33  
  34. 34. 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  34  
  35. 35. 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  35  
  36. 36. Kershaw  Mineral  Lab   §  $5  million  investment   §  1.5  km  from  Haile   §  U,lized  for  internal  purposes  only   § Increases  turnaround  ,me  for  assays   § Enhances  explora,on  efficiency   § Metallurgical  testwork  for  increasing   recoveries   §  All  assays  disseminated  to  public  are   completely  by  third  party   independent  lab   § Accredita,on  process  underway.   First  round  completed  successfully.   § Accredita,on  expected  by  year  end  2012  36  
  37. 37. Valua,on  
  38. 38. 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   $1.55  38  
  39. 39. P/NAV  vs  Peer  Group   §  Romarco  trades  at  a  discount  to  its  developer  peers  on  a  P/NAV  basis(1)   July 4, 2011 Romarco Minerals Inc. ! #$%%!()!*+,,-.!/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, 201139   250,000 $500 S$/oz) (oz) 200,000 $400
  40. 40. 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  40  
  41. 41. Contact  Informa,on   Head  Office  Informa,on   Dan  Symons   Romarco  Minerals  Inc.   Manager,  Investor  RelaOons   Brookfield  Place   dsymons@romarco.com   181  Bay  Street,  Suite  3630   Toronto,  Ontario  M5J  2T3   Tel:  416.367.5500   Fax:  416.367.5505   Email:  info@romarco.com   Website:  www.romarco.com  41  

×