Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. (NYSE American: PZG) ("Paramount”)(the
”Company”) today released the results of the Feasibility Study
(“FS”)(the ”Study”) for its 100% owned Grassy Mountain Gold Project
(the “Project”) in eastern Oregon. The Study outlines an
underground mining operation with exceptional economic viability
yielding strong NPV and IRR results, low initial capital and low
all-in sustaining costs (“AISC”) that generate substantial
cash-flows over the life of mine. The Study will be filed on SEDAR
within 45 days of this news release.
The base case was conducted using two-year
trailing gold and silver prices per ounce of $1,472 and $16.96
respectively.
The highlights of the NI 43-101 Technical Report
in the base case scenario are as follows:
- Pre-tax IRR of 27.9% and NPV5% of $123M which increase
significantly to 44.7% and $238M at $1,900 gold;
- After-tax IRR of 26.0% and NPV5% of $105M which increase
significantly to 40.9% and $195M at $1,900 gold;
- Life of mine cash costs of $5831 and AISC of $6712 per ounce of
gold3;
- Initial CapEx of $97.5M includes $10.1M of estimated
contingencies, $25.6M of sustaining CapEx and $6.3M closure costs
for a 750 tpd mine and milling operation;
- Initial 8 year mine life producing 362,000 ounces of gold and
425,000 ounces silver;
- Annual production of 47,000 ounces of gold and 55,000 ounces of
silver;
- Exceptional average gold and silver recoveries of 92.8% and
73.5 % respectively;
- After-tax payback of 3.1 years; and
- Total free cash flow of $165M (post-tax);
"This study is everything we had hoped for,
including important improvements over the preliminary feasibility
study we completed a little over two years ago. Paramount can now
satisfy the remaining permitting requirements identified by the
State of Oregon and the Bureau of Land Management in Paramount’s
recently submitted Consolidated Permit Application and Plan of
Operation. We are very close to realizing our goal of building
Grassy Mountain into a modern and environmentally friendly mine,
leveraging the industry’s best practices and technologies,” stated
Glen Van Treek, the Company’s President and COO. ”Our focus now is
to add resources to extend mine life and generate further economic
returns for our shareholders,” he said.
The FS was completed by a group of industry
leading consulting firms led by: Ausenco Engineering Canada Inc.
(“Ausenco”) who managed the overall study and were responsible for
processing and infrastructure design and oversaw metallurgical
testing; Mine Development Associates (“MDA”) who updated the
mineral resource estimate and completed the mine planning and
reserves estimation; Golder Associates (“Golder”), who designed the
tailings storage facility; and EM Strategies who oversaw all
environmental aspects of the Feasibility Study.
Paramount’s CEO, Rachel Goldman added: “Since
acquiring Grassy Mountain in 2016, the Company has been committed
to building a profitable mine with a quick payback. The results of
the Feasibility Study confirm our goal is achievable, validating
the hard work that the team has dedicated towards advancing Grassy
to become Oregon’s first gold mine, and giving us a first-mover
advantage in the state.”
Mineral ResourcesMineralized
material is reported under the Canadian Institute of Mining (“CIM”)
standards for reporting mineralized material. Grassy Mountain’s
“in-pit mineralization” was estimated using GEOVIA Whittle software
to define all potentially economic mineralization that could be
mined from surface in an open pit configuration. The primary
parameters entered by MDA for the in-pit constrained resources,
which comprise more than 99% of the total mineral resources,
include $1,500/oz of gold and $20/oz of silver (typical of industry
resource reporting), a 5,000 ton per day processing rate using a
$2.00 per ton mining cost, $13 per ton processing cost, and average
gold and silver recoveries of 80% and 60% respectively. Processing
is assumed to consist of crushing and milling followed by Carbon in
Leach (“CIL”) recovery resulting in the production of a DORE bar on
site. In-pit and underground mineral resources are tabulated as
follows:
MINERAL RESOURCES
Imperial Units |
|
|
|
|
|
Classification |
Tons |
Au(oz/t) |
Ag(oz/t) |
Au(ounces) |
Ag(ounces) |
Measured |
18,190,000 |
0.020 |
0.079 |
369,000 |
1,438,000 |
Indicated |
12,712,000 |
0.054 |
0.146 |
691,000 |
1,861,000 |
Measured + Indicated |
30,902,000 |
0.034 |
0.107 |
1,060,000 |
3,299,000 |
Inferred |
1,004,000 |
0.041 |
0.120 |
41,000 |
120,000 |
Metric
Units |
|
|
|
|
|
Classification |
Tonnes |
Au(g/T) |
Ag(g/T) |
Au(ounces) |
Ag(ounces) |
Measured |
16,502,000 |
0.69 |
2.71 |
369,000 |
1,438,000 |
Indicated |
11,532,000 |
1.85 |
5.01 |
691,000 |
1,861,000 |
Measured + Indicated |
28,034,000 |
1.17 |
3.67 |
1,060,000 |
3,299,000 |
Inferred |
911,000 |
1.41 |
4.11 |
41,000 |
120,000 |
- Mineral resources are comprised of all model blocks at a 0.012
oz AuEq/ton cutoff that lie within an optimized pit plus blocks at
a 0.060 oz AuEq/ton cutoff that lie outside of the optimized
pit;
- oz AuEq/ton (gold equivalent grade) = oz Au/ton + (oz Ag/ton ÷
100);
- The mineral resources are inclusive of the mineral
reserves;
- Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability;
- The Effective Date of the Grassy Mountain resource estimate is
March 31, 2020; and
- Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between
tons/tonnes, grade, and contained metal content.
Mineral ReservesProven and
probable mineral reserves are reported using CIM standards and were
based on all defined parameters in the FS using measured and
indicated resources. Reserves are estimated for an underground
mining operation with defined portal access and decline development
to access the mineralized material. Initial economic material was
defined using various stope sizes with an initial cut-off grade of
0.1 ounces of gold per ton.
Reserves are reported using measured and
indicated resources inside the defined economically viable mining
stopes, including ore lost and dilution from measured and indicated
resources.
MINERAL RESERVES
Imperial
Units |
Classification |
Tons |
Au(oz/t) |
Ag(oz/t) |
Au(ounces) |
Ag(ounces) |
Proven |
259,554 |
0.18 |
0.26 |
46,987 |
68,421 |
Probable |
1,651,894 |
0.20 |
0.29 |
333,036 |
485,522 |
Proven + Probable |
1,911,448 |
0.20 |
0.29 |
380,023 |
553,943 |
Ore Loss & Dilution |
158,640 |
0.06 |
0.15 |
9,910 |
24,336 |
Proven + Probable + Ore Loss & Dilution |
2,070,088 |
0.19 |
0.28 |
389,933 |
578,279 |
Metric
Units |
Classification |
Tonnes |
Au(g/T) |
Ag(g/T) |
Au(ounces) |
Ag(ounces) |
Proven |
235,463 |
6.21 |
9.04 |
46,987 |
68,421 |
Probable |
1,498,573 |
6.91 |
10.08 |
333,036 |
485,522 |
Proven + Probable |
1,734,036 |
6.82 |
9.94 |
380,023 |
553,943 |
Ore Loss & Dilution |
143,916 |
2.14 |
5.26 |
9,910 |
24,336 |
Proven + Probable + Ore Loss & Dilution |
1,877,952 |
6.46 |
9.58 |
389,933 |
578,279 |
Mine Plan and ProductionThe
mine plan was developed using a drift and fill underhand mining
methodology. A cut-off grade of 0.1 opt Au was used to define
economic stopes. Ore processing from the upper portion of the mine
is expected to commence concurrently with the completion of the
processing plant and infrastructure. Following ramp up, the mine is
expected to produce an average of 1,300 to 1,400 tonnes per day, 4
days a week, which will provide enough material for the 750 ton per
day mill and processing plant to operate at full capacity for 7
days a week.
Below is a summarized mine plan on a year by
year basis over the life of the mine.
YEAR |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
Total |
Mined M&I Resource Above (COG) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tons (t) |
158,166 |
203,485 |
197,545 |
201,166 |
204,796 |
235,360 |
205,313 |
125,678 |
1,531,510 |
Grade (oz Au/ton) |
0.26 |
0.22 |
0.23 |
0.26 |
0.22 |
0.22 |
0.22 |
0.24 |
0.23 |
Ounces (oz Au) |
41,670 |
44,190 |
46,132 |
52,931 |
44,597 |
51,345 |
44,655 |
30,111 |
355,631 |
Grade (oz Ag/ton) |
0.35 |
0.28 |
0.29 |
0.33 |
0.32 |
0.30 |
0.32 |
0.34 |
0.31 |
Ounces (oz Ag) |
55,827 |
57,405 |
56,793 |
66,262 |
65,763 |
71,156 |
65,157 |
43,109 |
481,473 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mined M&I Resource Subgrade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tons (t) |
51,620 |
61,317 |
51,369 |
59,088 |
55,378 |
45,357 |
37,085 |
18,724 |
379,938 |
Grade (oz Au/ton) |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.06 |
Ounces (oz Au) |
3,159 |
3,887 |
3,234 |
3,597 |
3,646 |
3,046 |
2,504 |
1,319 |
24,392 |
Grade (oz Ag/ton) |
0.21 |
0.18 |
0.17 |
0.18 |
0.19 |
0.20 |
0.21 |
0.20 |
0.19 |
Ounces (oz Ag) |
10,902 |
10,832 |
8,770 |
10,922 |
10,603 |
9,148 |
7,641 |
3,651 |
72,469 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Mined to Stockpile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tons (t) |
209,786 |
264,802 |
248,913 |
260,254 |
260,175 |
280,717 |
242,398 |
144,402 |
1,911,447 |
Grade (oz Au/ton) |
0.21 |
0.18 |
0.20 |
0.22 |
0.19 |
0.19 |
0.19 |
0.22 |
0.20 |
Ounces (oz Au) |
44,829 |
48,077 |
49,366 |
56,527 |
48,243 |
54,391 |
47,159 |
31,430 |
380,023 |
Grade (oz Ag/ton) |
0.32 |
0.26 |
0.26 |
0.30 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
0.30 |
0.32 |
0.29 |
Ounces (oz Ag) |
66,729 |
68,237 |
65,563 |
77,184 |
76,367 |
80,305 |
72,798 |
46,761 |
553,943 |
Total with Ore Loss & Dilution |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tons (t) |
229,597 |
288,356 |
266,720 |
280,963 |
278,486 |
304,308 |
265,800 |
155,858 |
2,070,088 |
Grade (oz Au/ton) |
0.20 |
0.17 |
0.19 |
0.21 |
0.18 |
0.18 |
0.18 |
0.21 |
0.19 |
Ounces (oz Au) |
45,921 |
49,568 |
50,575 |
57,830 |
49,528 |
55,845 |
48,498 |
32,167 |
389,933 |
Grade (oz Ag/ton) |
0.30 |
0.25 |
0.26 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
0.28 |
0.29 |
0.31 |
0.28 |
Ounces (oz Ag) |
69,602 |
71,419 |
68,220 |
80,221 |
79,660 |
84,131 |
76,294 |
48,731 |
578,279 |
Metallurgy and ProcessAusenco’s
metallurgists and process design engineers evaluated and reviewed
extensively the previously completed metallurgical testing and
conducted additional testing for recovery and grindability, leach
time and cyanide concentration, amongst other parameters. The
Grassy mountain processing facility will consist of a milling
facility followed by a CIL circuit. Ausenco provided a recovery
relationship between grade and recovery based on all tests
conducted, which was used to estimate recovery on a monthly basis
for the mine plan, the overall average gold and silver recoveries
estimated are 92.8% for gold and 73.5 % for silver.
Capital CostsGrassy Mountain is
located on both private and federal land. Existing road access will
be upgraded to handle additional use from mine development and
operation. As an alternative to on-site diesel power generation,
renewable electricity will be provided by Idaho Power, from the
Hope substation in Malheur County, through the construction of a
power line that will bring power to site. Tailings disposal during
the life of mine will be constructed in three stages, however a
total of four stages have been designed to accommodate for
potential mine life expansion whereby additional ore will be
processed. The processing plant will consist of a crushing and mill
facility, followed by CIL processing of the mill fines resulting in
a mill processing design capacity of 750 tons per day. Capital
costs were estimated using all new equipment. Substantial savings
in capital could be achieved by sourcing used equipment which is
plentiful in the western U.S.
The capital costs are highlighted in the following table:
|
Initial(000’s of $US) |
Sustaining(000’s of $US) |
Total(000’s of $US) |
Mine |
10,700 |
15,000 |
25,700 |
Site Development |
4,000 |
|
4,000 |
Plant |
23,400 |
|
23,400 |
Mineral Processing |
|
300 |
300 |
Process Indirect |
14,300 |
|
14,300 |
On-site Infrastructure |
12,200 |
700 |
12,900 |
Off-site Infrastructure |
9,100 |
400 |
9,500 |
Tailing Storage Facility |
6,000 |
14,600 |
20,600 |
Owners Capital |
7,700 |
(5,600) |
2,100 |
Subtotal |
87,500 |
25,600 |
113,000 |
Contingency |
10,100 |
|
10,100 |
Total Capital |
97,500 |
25,600 |
123,100 |
Closure Costs |
|
|
6,300 |
*Rounding may cause discrepancies
Operating CostsThe exceptional
location of Grassy Mountain and the geometric nature of the
deposit’s mineralization are major factors in the low processing
cost as outlined in the Feasibility Study. Grassy is in close
proximity to the towns of Vale and Ontario in Oregon which
contributes to lower labour costs; it is just 60 miles south of the
project’s cement source, Ash Grove’s cement plant in Durkee,
Oregon; the mine is less than 20 miles from Idaho Power’s,
hydroelectrical power substation, which will attribute a low power
cost of 6 cents per kwh; the dissemination of the deposit allows
for a very low waste to ore ratio; and a majority of the
development was designed within the ore body or in slightly lower
grade material that will be processed creating incremental revenue.
These features will help Grassy deliver US gold-industry leading
operating costs of $100 per ton of ore processed.
Processing cost over the life of mine are estimated at $57.5
million or $27.77 per ton of ore processed. These costs are
outlined in detail as follows:
Cost Item |
Total Costs(000’s of $/year) |
Total Costs(%) |
Mill Feed($/ton) |
Fixed Costs |
|
|
|
Labor |
3,245 |
42.7 % |
11.9 |
General Maintenance |
1,060 |
13.9 % |
3.9 |
Sub-total (Fixed Costs) |
4,305 |
56.6 % |
15.73 |
Variable Costs |
|
|
|
Power |
1,142 |
15.0 % |
4.2 |
Reagents & Operating Consumables |
1.945 |
25.6 % |
7.1 |
Maintenance Consumables |
210 |
2.8 % |
0.8 |
Sub-total (Variable Costs) |
3,297 |
43.4 % |
12.04 |
TOTAL |
7,602 |
100 % |
27.77 |
Note: Process cost only. Rounding may cause apparent
discrepancies.
Total mining operating costs over the life of
mine are estimated at $120.5 million. Total general and
administration costs are estimated at $29.9 million ($3.73 M/Year),
resulting in $72.65 per processed ton of mining cost.
Operating Cost Item |
Total Costs |
Total cost |
Mill feed |
(000's of $/Year) |
% |
$/t |
|
|
|
|
Blasting |
35 |
0.2% |
$ |
0.14 |
Blasting Product |
1,251 |
6.7% |
$ |
4.83 |
Dual (Drill & Bolt) Operating |
436 |
2.3% |
$ |
1.68 |
Dual (Drill & Bolt) Product Operating |
1,112 |
5.9% |
$ |
4.30 |
Mucking |
592 |
3.1% |
$ |
2.29 |
Shotcrete |
49 |
0.3% |
$ |
0.19 |
Transmixer |
56 |
0.3% |
$ |
0.22 |
Trucking |
524 |
2.8% |
$ |
2.03 |
Trucking CRF (Backfill) |
199 |
1.1% |
$ |
0.77 |
Backfill Product |
3,481 |
18.5% |
$ |
13.45 |
Subtotal Mining Operating Cost |
7,735 |
41.1% |
$ |
29.90 |
Labor |
6,471 |
34.4% |
$ |
25.01 |
Electrical |
329 |
1.8% |
$ |
1.27 |
Diesel Fuel |
435 |
2.3% |
$ |
1.68 |
General Supplies |
97 |
0.5% |
$ |
0.37 |
Total General Operating Cost |
7,332 |
39.0% |
$ |
28.33 |
TOTAL OPERATING (Mining + General) |
15,067 |
80.1% |
$ |
58.23 |
General and Administration |
3,732 |
19.9% |
$ |
14.42 |
Total Mine and G&A |
18,799 |
100% |
$ |
72.65 |
Economic AnalysisA base case
for the economic analysis was performed at gold and silver prices
per ounce of $1,472 and $16.96 respectively. The base case scenario
provides a post-tax IRR of 26.0 % and a NPV5% of $105 million. The
break-even gold price for this mining operation is approximately
$1,000 per ounce of gold.
The following table illustrates the sensitivities that a variety
of gold price environments have on both the NPV and IRR:
|
Base Case |
Upside Case |
Lower Case |
Gold Price ($/oz) |
1,472 |
1,900 |
1,300 |
Silver Price ($/oz) |
16.96 |
16.96 |
16.96 |
Cash Operating Cost Per Au Ounce 1 |
$583 |
$590 |
$581 |
Total Cost Per Ounce Au (AISC )1 |
$671 |
$678 |
$669 |
After-tax Internal Rate of Return |
26.0% |
40.9% |
19.2% |
After-tax Net Present Value (5%) (000’s of USD’s) |
$105 |
$195 |
$69 |
After-tax Net Present Value (8%) (000’s of USD’s) |
$79 |
$156 |
$48 |
After-tax Net Present Value (10%) (000’s of USD’s) |
$65 |
$134 |
$36 |
Payback from start of production (years) |
3.1 |
2.0 |
3.7 |
1 After silver credits
Methods and Parameters Relevant to the Resource
Estimation
The gold and silver mineral resources at Grassy
Mountain were modeled and estimated using the following
criteria:
- statistically evaluating the drill
data;
- separately interpreting gold and
silver mineral domains on a set of 070°-looking cross sections
spaced at 50-foot intervals;
- rectifying the cross-sectional
mineral-domain interpretations on level plans spaced at 10-foot
vertical intervals and using these plans to code a block
model;
- analyzing the modeled
mineralization spatially and statistically to aid in the
establishment of estimation and classification parameters; and
- interpolating grades into the block
model using the coding of the level-plan gold and silver mineral
domains to constrain the estimation.
Resources with a reasonable expectation of
potential extraction by open-pit methods are constrained to lie
within an optimized pit. Additional parameters used in the
optimization to those provided above include a general
administrative (“G&A”) cost of $2.22 per ton processed and a
refining cost of $5.00 per ounce produced. The in-pit resources
were then tabulated by the application of a gold-equivalent cut-off
of 0.012 opt. The gold-equivalent grades were determined using a
gold to silver ratio of a 100 to 1.
The effective date of the mineral resources and
mineral reserves is March 31, 2020.
NI 43-101 DisclosureThe
metallurgical analysis, process design development of the process
plant capital and operating cost estimates and financial modeling
were supervised and reviewed by Tommaso Roberto Raponi of Ausenco,
a Qualified Person (as defined under National Instrument 43-101)
and is independent of Paramount Gold Nevada Corp.
The mineral reserve estimate was estimated by
Joseph Seamons PE, from MDA, a Division of RESPEC, a Qualified
Person (as defined under National Instrument 43-101) and is
independent of Paramount Gold Nevada Corp.
The mineral resource estimate was completed and
reviewed by Michael Gustin of MDA, a Division of RESPEC, a
Qualified Person (as defined under National Instrument 43-101) and
is independent of Paramount Gold Nevada Corp.
All the above-named Qualified Persons have
reviewed and approved this news release.
Paramount will file the completed NI 43-101
Feasibility Technical Report on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) within 45
days of this press release.
To stay informed of future press releases,
subscribe to our E-Alerts Program and to learn more about our
projects visit the projects section of our website.
About Paramount Gold Nevada
Corp.Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. is a U.S. based precious
metals exploration and development company. Paramount’s strategy is
to create shareholder value through exploring and developing its
mineral properties and to realize this value for its shareholders
in three ways: by selling its assets to established producers;
entering into joint ventures with producers for construction and
operation; or constructing and operating mines for its own
account.
Paramount owns 100% of the Grassy Mountain Gold
Project which consists of approximately 11,000 acres located on
private and BLM land in Malheur County, Oregon. The Grassy Mountain
Gold Project contains a gold-silver deposit (100% located on
private land) for which results of a positive Pre-Feasibility Study
have been released and key permitting milestones accomplished.
Paramount owns a 100% interest in the Sleeper
Gold Project located in Northern Nevada, the world’s premier mining
jurisdiction. The Sleeper Gold Project, which includes the former
producing Sleeper mine, totals 2,322 unpatented mining claims
(approximately 60 square miles or 15,500 hectares). The Sleeper
gold project is host to a large gold deposit (over 4 million ounces
of mineralized material) and the Company has completed and released
a positive Preliminary Economic Assessment.
About AusencoAusenco is a
global diversified engineering, construction and project management
company providing consulting, project delivery and asset management
solutions to the resources, energy and infrastructure sectors.
Ausenco’s experience in gold and silver projects ranges from
conceptual, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for new project
developments to project execution with EPCM and EPC delivery.
Ausenco is currently engaged on a number of global projects with
similar characteristics and opportunities to the Grassy Mountain
Gold Project.
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors
Concerning Estimates of Indicated, Inferred Resources and
ReservesThis news release uses the terms "measured and
indicated resources", "inferred resources" and “proven and probable
reserves”. We advise U.S. investors that while these terms are
defined in, and permitted by, Canadian regulations, these terms are
not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 and not normally
permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed
with the SEC. "Inferred resources" have a great amount of
uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to
their 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 a feasibility study or
prefeasibility studies, except in rare cases. The SEC normally only
permits issuers to report mineralization that does not constitute
SEC Industry Guide 7 compliant "reserves", as in-place tonnage and
grade without reference to unit measures. U.S. investors are
cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in
this category will ever be converted into reserves. U.S. investors
are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of an inferred
resource exists or is economically or legally minable. Under SEC
Industry Guide 7 standards, a “final” or “bankable” feasibility
study is required to report reserves, the three-year historical
average price is used in any reserve or cash flow analysis to
designate reserves and the primary environmental analysis or report
must be filed with the appropriate governmental authority.
Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking
StatementsThis release and related documents may include
"forward-looking statements" and “forward-looking information”
(collectively, “forward-looking statements”) pursuant to applicable
United States and Canadian securities laws. Paramount’s future
expectations, beliefs, goals, plans or prospects constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the United States
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other
applicable securities laws. Words such as "believes," "plans,"
"anticipates," "expects," "estimates" and similar expressions are
intended to identify forward-looking statements, although these
words may not be present in all forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements included in this news release include,
without limitation, statements with respect to the use of proceeds
from the Offerings. Forward-looking statements are based on the
reasonable assumptions, estimates, analyses and opinions of
management made in light of its experience and its perception of
trends, current conditions and expected developments, as well as
other factors that management believes to be relevant and
reasonable in the circumstances at the date that such statements
are made, but which may prove to be incorrect. Management believes
that the assumptions and expectations reflected in such
forward-looking statements are reasonable. Assumptions have been
made regarding, among other things: the conclusions made in the
preliminary feasibility study for the Grassy Mountain Gold Project
(the “PFS”); the quantity and grade of resources included in
resource estimates; the accuracy and achievability of projections
included in the PFS; Paramount’s ability to carry on exploration
and development activities, including construction; the timely
receipt of required approvals and permits; the price of silver,
gold and other metals; prices for key mining supplies, including
labor costs and consumables, remaining consistent with current
expectations; work meeting expectations and being consistent with
estimates and plant, equipment and processes operating as
anticipated. There are a number of important factors that could
cause actual results or events to differ materially from those
indicated by such forward-looking statements, including, but not
limited to: uncertainties involving interpretation of drilling
results; environmental matters; the ability to obtain required
permitting; equipment breakdown or disruptions; additional
financing requirements; the completion of a definitive feasibility
study for the Grassy Mountain Gold Project; discrepancies between
actual and estimated mineral reserves and mineral resources,
between actual and estimated development and operating costs and
between estimated and actual production; the global epidemics,
pandemics, or other public health crises, including the novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) global health pandemic, and the spread of
other viruses or pathogens and the other factors described in
Paramount’s disclosures as filed with the SEC and the Ontario,
British Columbia and Alberta Securities Commissions.
Except as required by applicable law, Paramount
disclaims any intention or obligation to update any forward-looking
statements as a result of developments occurring after the date of
this document.
Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. Rachel Goldman, Chief
Executive OfficerChristos Theodossiou, Director of
Corporate
Communications866-481-2233Twitter:
@ParamountNV
1 Cash costs consist of mining costs, processing costs,
mine-level G&A and refining charges and royalties2 AISC
includes cash costs plus sustaining capital and closure costs3
After silver credits
Paramount Gold and Silver (AMEX:PZG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Paramount Gold and Silver (AMEX:PZG)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024