A Gold Miner in the Making March 2017 2 Forw rward Looking In - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

a gold miner in the making
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

A Gold Miner in the Making March 2017 2 Forw rward Looking In - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Goose Gold Project, Back River, Nunavut, Canada A Gold Miner in the Making March 2017 2 Forw rward Looking In Information Statements relating to our belief as to the timing of completion of the environmental assessment, the results of the


slide-1
SLIDE 1

A Gold Miner in the Making

March 2017

Goose Gold Project, Back River, Nunavut, Canada

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Forw rward Looking In Information

Statements relating to our belief as to the timing of completion of the environmental assessment, the results of the final public hearings, the timing of receipt of a project certificate and permits and the timing of the start of construction and the first gold pour, and the results of further optimization studies to the feasibility study, the potential tonnage and grades and contents of deposits and the potential production from and viability of Sabina’s properties are forward looking information within the meaning of securities legislation of certain Provinces in Canada. Forward looking information are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always identified by the words “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “intends,” “estimates,” “projects,” “potential,” “opportunities,” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions “will,” “would.” “may,” “could,” or should occur. The forward looking information is made of the date of this presentation. This forward looking information is subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those reflected in the forward looking information, including, without limitation: the effects of general economic conditions; changing foreign exchange rates; risks associated with exploration and project development; the calculation of mineral resources and reserves; risks related to fluctuations in metal prices; uncertainties related to raising sufficient financing to fund the planned work in a timely manner and on acceptable terms; changes in planned work arising from weather, logistical, technical or other factors; the possibility that results of work will not fulfill expectations and realize the perceived potential of the Company’s properties; risk of accidents, equipment breakdowns and labour disputes; access to project funding or other unanticipated difficulties or interruptions; the possibility of cost overruns or unanticipated expenses in the work program; title matters; government regulation; obtaining and receiving necessary licenses and permits; the risk of environmental contamination or damage resulting from Sabina’s operations and other risks and uncertainties including those described in Sabina’s annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2016 available at www.sedar.com Forward looking information is based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of Sabina’s management on the date the statements are made. Sabina undertakes no obligation to update the forward looking information should management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, change, except as required by applicable law

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Key y In Investment Hig ighli lights

  • Regional scale (80km belt)
  • Large high grade resource/reserve
  • Pro-responsible development
  • Feasibility complete
  • Robust at US$1150 gold and C$0.80
  • Strong community support
  • Attractive to producers looking to

replenish supply

  • Exceptional team
  • ~C$45 million in cash and equivalents

A scarcity of gold and de-risked gold projects make Sabina one of the few highly leveraged undervalued

  • pportunities

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Back k Riv iver Gold ld Belt lt

DISTRICT OPPORTUNITY Current Mine Life ~ 12 years LOM Gold Production 2.3M oz M&I 5,333M oz Au Inferred 1,851M oz Au

Significant extended production

  • pportunities exist through:
  • Deposits not included in FS plan

(at both Goose and George)

  • Low risk resource conversion opportunities
  • Direct extensional potential for all deposits
  • Numerous blue sky brownfield targets
  • Continued greenfield and generative

exploration future

Back River Property 80 Km

Kilometres 12.5 25

LEGEND

Inuit Owned Land Camp Area of Interest Claim Lease Surface Subsurface and Surface

George Project Boot Boulder Goose Project Del Bath 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1998 2002 2007 2009 2010 2012 2015

Gold Resource

Millions oz

Indicated Inferred

Back k Riv iver – Deposit its are Well ll Drille illed and Well ll Understood

5

Under Sabina Ownership

*See mineral reserves and resources estimate slide 29 for details

Mineral Resource Estimate Oct/14 Tonnes (kt) Au (g/t) Metal (koz Au) Measured 10,273 5.27 1,740 Indicated 17,969 6.22 3,593 Measured and Indicated 28,242 5.87 5,333 Inferred 7,750 7.43 1,851 Mineral Reserve Estimate Aug/15 Classification Tonnes (kt) Au (g/t) Au (koz) Total Open Pit Proven 6,983 5.97 1,340 Probable 1,885 5.52 335 Total Underground Proven 20 9.52 6 Probable 3,471 7.37 822 Total Back River Property Proven 7,003 5.98 1,346 Probable 5,356 6.72 1,157

80% of open pit reserve is in Proven Category

1980’s & 90s 1997-2009 June 2009 2010-2014

George & Goose deposit discoveries Project owned by Arauco, Kinross, Miramar & DPM Project acquired by Sabina +325% resource growth under Sabina

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Back k Riv iver – World ld Cla lass Grade

  • Highest grade undeveloped open pits
  • The only high-grade project with a major open pit component (72% OP, 28% UG)

6

15.77 8.67 6.21 3.26 3.06 2.67 2.30 1.65 1.60 1.04 1.03 5 10 15

+5 Moz Development Gold Assets in the Americas

Total Resource gold grade g/t

UG OP/UG UG UG/OP UG/OP OP OP OP OP OP OP

Notes: Total 2P, Measured, Indicated & Inferred gold resources larger than ~5 million ounces; excludes by-products. Source: Company Technical Reports

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Process To Date

7

Event Date Start of Permitting 2012 Final EIS Submitted 2015 Final Public Hearings – (Regulators, GN, GNWT, KIA, Community Representatives all agree project should proceed) April 2016 NIRB Recommendation to INAC – Project should not proceed at this time June 2016 INAC Disagrees with NIRB. Project sent back for further review Jan 2017 Sabina Files FEIS Addendum Feb 16, 2017 NIRB Formally Accepts FEIS Addendum – Provides timeline Feb 23, 2017

slide-8
SLIDE 8

“[it is]… our intention to ensure that the assessment would be expeditious and would result in a new report which focuses on the areas of deficiencies identified by the Ministers (rather than all aspects of the previous assessment being revisited).”

Goin ing Forw rward – NIR IRB Tim imeli line

8

Ryan Barry Executive Director, NIRB

What happens next?

Event Date NIRB initiates the Technical Review of the project proposal and requests final written submissions from interested parties Feb 23, 2017 NIRB issues notice of Final Hearing (60 day public notice requirement) Mar 2017 Parties submit final written submissions to the NIRB Apr 24, 2017 Sabina submits its response to final written submissions to NIRB May 15, 2017 NIRB facilitates a Technical Meeting via teleconference (optional step to be utilized if deemed necessary/appropriate) May 24, 2017 Parties file presentations for Final Hearing (tentative date only) May 27, 2017 NIRB Final Hearing (tentative dates only) May 31 – Jun 3, 2017 NIRB issues the updated Final Hearing Report for the Back River Project proposal. Jul 2017

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Addendum to FEIS File iled wit ith NIR IRB Feb 16/17

9

Area Concern Updated Submission To NIRB Caribou and Terrestrial Wildlife

Although Project does not come into contact with Bathurst Herd and has little overlap with Beverly Herd, if Caribou change migration the project could have a negative impact on declining caribou herd populations. Enhanced Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan including additional

  • perational slow-down measures for large groups of caribou and in -case of

a shift in migration and calving grounds. Comparisons to other arctic projects showing best in class approach. Completed detailed third party reviews with industry experts.

Freshwater Aquatic Environment

How can we minimize impacts on fish populations in the project area? Updated plans for draining lakes/ponds and removal of fish from waterbodies affected by the project, additional detail also provided on plans for to offset removal of fish by providing increased access for fish in other

  • areas. (Program at Bernard Harbour).

Marine Environment

Regulatory oversight for bulk fuel shipping, and being able to respond quickly enough should there be accidents/spills. Enhanced detail on plans for bulk fuel transport and transfer at the Marine Laydown Area, as well as additional detail on emergency response planning. Further detail and clarity provided on responsibilities of various government ministries.

Water Quality

(Ground and Surface)

Quality and handling of project contact water. Enhanced detail and clarification on site water quality objectives, including additional discussions with regulators and comparisons to other arctic projects.

Climate and Meteorology

Impact of climate change on waste rock and tailings storage after the mine has closed (permafrost warming). Comparison to other Arctic projects showing best in class approach and adaptive management plans (increased monitoring of rock to be able to mitigate before negative events happen). Completed detailed third party reviews with industry experts.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Key y Support from Government and KIA IA

“…As a result, KIA recommends that the Report be returned to the Board under paragraph 12.5.7.(e) with your [Minister of INAC] instructions to focus any further investigations on matters related to the Project’s impacts on caribou and the best approaches to mitigation of such impacts.”

Stanley Anablak President, Kitikmeot Inuit Association

“In the GN’s opinion, it is possible to develop terms and conditions to address the concerns expressed by the NIRB

  • f the efficacy and adaptability of mitigation measure[s] for

terrestrial wildlife, including caribou. Accordingly, referring the Final Hearing Report back to the NIRB for further review and public hearings may be the most responsible and expeditious way forward, and the one that provides the best opportunity to advance responsible development to provide economic opportunities for Nunavut’s communities while respecting Inuit societal values and protecting the integrity of our land, water and wildlife.”

Government of Nunavut

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Back k Riv iver In Init itial Proje ject Feasib ibili lity Study Hig ighlig ights

  • 244 koz/au in years 1-8,
  • 198 koz/au LOM.

Significant Gold Production

  • 4 mining areas within 5 km

Simplified Mine Plan

  • 3 open pits (Llama, Umwelt, Goose Main)
  • 1 underground (Umwelt)

Primarily Open Pit

  • 72% of ore from open pits
  • Payback with open pit mining

3,000 tonnes per day

  • Higher proportion of pre-fab modules

targeting less on site labour.

Infrastructure

  • Against Northern projects

Credible Relevant Benchmarking

11

For QA QC see slide 29 for details

slide-12
SLIDE 12

In Init itial Proje ject Feasib ibili lity Study Results

BACK RIVER - SEPT 2015

*LOM All-In Cash Cost includes initial, sustaining and closure capital QA/QP (see slide 35)

Pre-Tax NPV(5%) & IRR

C$699M / 28.2%

After-Tax NPV(5%) & IRR

C$480M / 24.2%

Payback

2.9 years

Mill Throughput

3,000 tpd

  • Avg. Grade Processed

6.30 diluted g/t Au

Gold Recovery

93.0%

Mine Life

11.8 years

  • Avg. Production (Y1-8)

250,000 oz/year

Summary Results @US$1,150/oz Gold/ C$0.80 Exchange

  • Avg. LOM Production

198,000 oz/year

On-Site Op. Costs

C$114.58/t milled

Total Cash Cost

US$534/oz

All-In Sustaining Cost

US$620/oz

LOM All-In Cash Cost*

US$763/oz

Pre-Production Capital

C$415M

Sustaining Capital

C$185M

Closure Capital

C$64M

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Sensitivity to Capex & Opex

Back k Riv iver Feasibili lity Study

SENSITIVITIES & OPTIMIZATIONS

*LOM All-In Cash Cost includes initial, sustaining and closure capital QA/QP (see slide 35)

January 5, 2017 spot Au and FX = ~CAD $1,562, IRR = 28%, NPV $605M (after-tax)

Sensitivity to Gold Price and Exchange Rate

NPV 5%, (C$M), IRR %, Post-Tax

Operating Costs

  • 20%
  • 10%

Base Case +10% +20% Capital Costs

  • 20%

715 653 592 529 468 36.2 34.1 32.0 29.7 27.3

  • 10%

659 591 536 474 415 31.8 29.9 27.8 25.6 23.4 Base Case 603 542 480 418 356 28.1 26.2 24.2 22.1 20.0 +10% 547 486 425 362 300 24.8 23.3 21.1 19.1 17.0 +20% 492 430 369 306 245 21.9 20.2 18.3 16.4 14.4

NPV 5%, (C$M), IRR %, Post-Tax

Exchange Rate: US$:C$ 0.70 0.725 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 Gold Price (US$/oz) $ 1,000 472 421 375 289 210 140 23.9 22.2 20.5 17.4 14.3 11.3 $ 1,150 687 630 577 480 394 317 30.9 29.1 27.4 24.2 21.2 18.4 $ 1,250 832 769 711 606 513 430 35.1 33.3 31.6 28.3 25.3 22.5 $ 1,350 977 910 846 732 631 542 39.1 37.3 35.5 32.2 29.1 26.3 $ 1,500 1,191 1,117 1,048 923 809 710 44.5 42.7 41.0 37.6 34.5 31.6

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Potential l Proje ject Optimizations

  • Flotation vs. whole ore leach
  • Potential for positive impact on CAPEX, OPEX and recovery
  • Opportunities for satellite deposits (eg: George)
  • Improvements to overall project execution schedule
  • Optimization of site layouts (Goose & MLA),

process and infrastructure layout and design

  • Increased Gold Price
  • US$1,200 gold price Echo, Llama UG & George add potential to

increase mine life with existing resources

  • Imbedded growth – all existing deposits remain open, numerous

exploration opportunities

  • Personnel and expertise availability (both for construction and operations)
  • Access to used equipment (mining, process and infrastructure)
  • Exploration opportunities for many years to come

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Nunavut

  • 33,000 people live in coastal and

inland communities in Nunavut

  • Mining has been ongoing for decades
  • Established routes and logistics for

fuel delivery, construction equipment and resupply

15

AN ACTIVE MINING REGION

Source data: GN, DOE 2003 - 2014

Nunavut is pro responsible resource development

Pine Point Cullaton Raglan Nanisivik Mine Polaris Mine Mary River

George

LEGEND

Project Current or Past Producing Mines Communities Kitikmeot Region

Snap Lake Diavik Ekati Lupin Mine Jericho Hope Bay Amaruq Meadowbank Meliadine Ulu

Goose Hackett

Yellowknife Gjoa Haven Ekaluktutiak Cambridge Bay Omingmaktok (Bay Chimo) Kugluktuk

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Logistic ics and Transportation

  • Equipment and material originating in

western North America or in China will be consolidated at Vancouver, BC

  • Equipment and material originating in

eastern North America or Europe will be consolidated at Becancour, QC

16

MARINE ROUTES

Source data: GN, DOE 2003 - 2014

Arctic Class Transport Ship Arctic Class Barge

Montreal MLA

LEGEND

Western Shipping Route Mackenzie River Barge Route Eastern Shipping Route

4,171 NM @ 7Kt = 25 Day Transit ~1,550 NM @ 5Kt = 13 Day Transit Hay River Vancouver

Western Shipping Route Mackenzie River Barge Route

3,360 NM @ 10.4Kt = 13.5 Day Transit

Eastern Shipping Route

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Logistic ics and Transportation

  • Winter roads will be annually constructed beginning

in Q4 Year -2

  • Construction will begin in December and take 6 weeks

working on 2 fronts (starting at Goose and the MLA)

  • The road will then remain operational for 7-8 weeks
  • During construction, up to 16 trucks will be used to move

freight and fuel from the MLA to the Goose site

  • During operations, 23-27 trucks

are required annually for freight and fuel from the MLA to Goose (~45 days)

WINTER ROADS

Source data: GN, DOE 2003 - 2014

Winter Road Transport Truck

Kilometers 10 20 1:450,000

TCWR Winter Road Connector Winter Road

LEGEND

Marine Laydown Area TCWR Winter Food Connector Winter Road Winter Road, George Tie-in Option 1 Winter Road, George Tie-in Option 2 BIPR Winter Road Connector Haul and Access Road Potential Development Area Federal Watershed Delineation Bathurst Inlet – Burnside River Upper Black River Queen Maud Gulf – Elice River Inuit Owned Lands Subsurface and Surface Surface

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Embedded Future Growth

Opportunities:

  • Stand alone second mine
  • Satellite with haulage via winter road to Goose complex
  • High value potential to add resources

GEORGE PROPERTY

Back River Property

Kilometres 12.5 25

Goose Project

Existing Mineral resources:

Indicated 1.1m oz @ 5.6 g/t Inferred 980k oz @ 6.32 g/t Included in 6KFS ~600 k oz

Significant existing resources at George on 20km

  • f largely unexplored iron formation offering
  • pportunity for another mining complex on the

Back River district

George Project

50 Km

LEGEND

Inuit Owned Land Camp Port Site George to BIPR Road Option BIPR Road Winter Road George to Goose Option Winter Road Port to Goose Option Winter Road Port to Goose Option Surface Subsurface and Surface

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Other Opportunities in in the Dis istrict

  • Two other widely mineralized BIF systems with

little to no work

  • Large gold footprint at Del
  • Demonstrated opportunity for gold discoveries

from field work, grab samples and limited drilling

  • Many years of exploration bluesky

Source data: GN, DOE 2003 - 2014

19 Boot Boulder George Goose

5,000 10,000 15,000 Meters

Locale 1 Locale 2 Takrark Oar Opener Piglet Player Ayers Grizzly Cumquat Falcon Feass Llama Umwelt Camp Zone Goose Main LCPN LCPS

LEGEND

Mineral Occurences Banded Iron Formation Lease Outline Claim Outline

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Hig igh Im Impact Targets Around Exis xistin ing Deposits

  • Targeting resource extension and

new discovery to demonstrate additional mine life

  • Approximately 6,000 meters of

drilling planned in two 5-week campaigns starting late spring

EXPLORATION 2017 Goose 2017 Target Areas

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Sig ignif ificant Potential at Both Lla lama and Umwelt lt Underground

  • Significant undrilled potential at both

Umwelt and LLama.

  • Parallel structures along 3 +km of strike.

Llama underground not in the current development plan.

  • At Llama a significant down plunge step
  • ut will test resource expansion potential.
  • At Umwelt drilling in the area of

the high grade Vault zone will test resource growth potential near limits of planned underground infrastructure.

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • Significant gold trend between

Kogoyok and Echo is under drilled over 2 + km strike length.

  • Echo deposit is open below

300m current depth of drilling and to the east where step-out drilling indicates continuation of the mineralized zone.

Other field work focusses on mapping and sampling at Goose, Boot and Boulder properties

New Dis iscovery ry at Kogoyok Offers Clo lose to Surface Targets

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Back k Riv iver Remains a Compell lling Gold ld Proje ject

  • Attractive as market recovers and producers look for supply
  • There are few advanced projects that are large, high grade, district scale, in good jurisdictions

Source: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mineweb/gold-miners-are-running-out-of-metal/

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Gold Discoveries

Total Resource gold grade g/t

EXPLORATION FAIL

Amount of gold found by miners has plunged 85% over the past decade

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

LOM Annual Production (Koz/yr) After-Tax IRR (%) at $1,200/oz

After-Tax IRR and LOM Annual LOM Production Matrix

Back k Riv iver - Large, Robust, , Good Ju Juris isdiction

Source: Company public information and Cormark Securities based on internal modelling of these projects at US$1200 gold and $0.75 US$:C$ Exchange. As at July 2016

Few projects with after tax IRR >30% with production ~200,000 oz per year at US$1200 gold price

24

MAX BSX VIT DNA NCA GQC AMM SBB (3,000 tpd case) ICG PVG

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Sabina Undervalued Rela lativ ive to Peers

  • Since NIRB recommendation, Sabina has under performed our peers
  • With permitting de-risking we can start to re-rate

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% PG TXGD TX20 SBB AMM LYD DNA ICG XRC ORE ITH BSX MAX CNL VIT WRN

SBB vs Peers – 12 month rolling comparison

Peers Median +121% Peers Average +146% SBB +51% Difference vs. Average

  • 95%

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Management & Board

Combined exploration, mine development, permitting operations & capital markets experience in over 70 projects & companies

Executive Management

Bruce McLeod President, CEO & Director Elaine Bennett VP Finance & CFO Nicole Hoeller VP Communications & Corp. Secretary

Technical Management

Angus Campbell VP Exploration Wes Carson VP Project Development Matthew Pickard VP Environment & Sustainability Bruce McLeod (Pres. & CEO) Roy Wilkes (Chairman) David Fennell Jonathan Goodman James Morton Anthony Walsh Walter Segsworth Anna Stylianides

Board of Directors

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Management & Board

Sabina Gold & Silver Corp.

Symbol SBB Listed exchange TSX Market capitalization ~C$317 million Shares outstanding (pro forma after financing) ~224 million Shares outstanding (diluted) ~243 million Cash Pro-forma cash YE ~C$46 million Debt None 52 week trading range C$0.54 -$1.87 Recent Price ~C$1.45

Analyst Coverage

BMO Capital Markets Andrew Kaip Paradigm Capital Don MacLean Cormark Securities Tyron Breytenbach RBC Capital Markets Sam Crittenden Canaccord Eric Zaunscherb Haywood Geordie Mark

Major Shareholders Holdings (I&O)

Dundee Precious Metals 10.7% Sun Valley Gold 10.5% Silver Wheaton 5.3% Management (options incl.) 3.0%

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Back k Riv iver Feasibili lity Study QA/QC

The FS was prepared under the direction of JDS Energy & Mining Inc. by leading independent industry consultants, all Qualified Persons (QP) under National Instrument 43-101.

Angus Campbell, P.Geo, Vice-President, Exploration, is a qualified person under NI-43-101 where the information relates to mineral resource estimates and Wes Carson, P.Eng Vice-President, Project Development is a qualified persons under NI 43-101 for the feasibility study and both approve the scientific and technical information contained herein. A National Instrument compliant 43-101 technical report will be filed on the project within 45 days from September 14, 2015. Further information can be found at Technical Report and Feasibility Study for the Back River Gold Property, Nunavut” dated June 22, 2015 and filed on SEDAR at http://www.sedar.com.

Qualified Person, Designation Company QP Responsibility/Role

Gord Doerksen, P.Eng. JDS Energy & Mining Inc. Executive Summary, Introduction, Reliance on Other Experts, Reserves, Infrastructure, Market Studies, Capex, Opex, Economic Analysis, Adjacent Properties, Environmental, Other Relevant Data, Interpretations, Recommendations, References, Abbreviations, Project Execution Plan, Logistics, Infrastructure, G&A Dino Pilotto, P.Eng. JDS Energy & Mining Inc. Mining Methods Andrew Fowler, MAusIMM, CP (Geo) AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. Mineral Resource Estimates for George Dinara Nussipakynova, P.Geo AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. Mineral Resource Estimates for Goose John Morton Shannon, P.Geo AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. Property Description, Accessibility, History, Geology, Deposits, Exploration, Drilling, sample Preparation, Data Verification Maritz Rykaart, P.Eng. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Geochemistry, Tailings Management, Water Management Stacy Freudigmann, P.Eng Canenco Canada Inc. Metallurgy, Recoveries, Process Rob Mercer, Ph.D., P.Eng Knight Piésold Ltd. Geomechanical

28