|
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
| |
6770
(Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code Number) |
| |
2657796
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |
|
|
Copies to:
|
| ||||||
|
Jaclyn L. Cohen
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Tel: (212) 310-8000 Fax: (212) 310-8007 |
| |
Stephen M. Jones
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Hycroft Mining Corporation 8181 E. Tufts Avenue Denver, CO 80237 Tel: (303) 524-1947 Fax: (775) 201-1045 |
| |
David S. Stone
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 269-8411 Fax: (312) 578-1796 |
|
| Large accelerated filer ☐ | | | Accelerated filer ☒ | | | Non-accelerated filer ☐ | | |
Smaller reporting company ☒
Emerging growth company ☒ |
|
| | | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | | 8 | | | |
| | | | | 19 | | | |
| | | | | 25 | | | |
| | | | | 30 | | | |
| | | | | 30 | | | |
| | | | | 31 | | | |
| | | | | 31 | | | |
| | | | | 31 | | | |
| | | | | 32 | | | |
| | | | | 35 | | | |
| | | | | 36 | | | |
| | | | | 37 | | | |
| | | | | 37 | | | |
| | | | | 38 | | | |
| | | | | 38 | | | |
| | | | | 38 | | | |
| | | | | 38 | | | |
| | | | | 39 | | | |
| | | | | 39 | | | |
| | | | | 39 | | | |
| | | | | 39 | | | |
| | | | | 39 | | | |
| | | | | 40 | | | |
| | | | | 41 | | | |
| | | | | 42 | | | |
| | | | | 42 | | | |
| | | | | 42 | | | |
| | | | | 43 | | | |
| | | | | 43 | | | |
| | | | | 43 | | | |
| | | | | 44 | | | |
| | | | | 44 | | | |
| | | | | 44 | | | |
| | | | | 44 | | | |
| | | | | 44 | | | |
| | | | | 45 | | | |
| | | | | 46 | | | |
| | | | | 46 | | | |
| | | | | 51 | | | |
| | | | | 61 | | | |
| | | | | 78 | | | |
| | | | | 80 | | | |
| | | | | 84 | | | |
| | | | | 93 | | |
| | | | | 93 | | | |
| | | | | 93 | | | |
| | | | | 93 | | | |
| | | | | 93 | | | |
| | | | | 94 | | | |
| | | | | 94 | | | |
| | | | | 94 | | | |
| | | | | 94 | | | |
| | | | | 95 | | | |
| | | | | 96 | | | |
| | | | | 96 | | | |
| | | | | 96 | | | |
| | | | | 110 | | | |
| | | | | 111 | | | |
| | | | | 117 | | | |
| | | | | 126 | | | |
| | | | | 126 | | | |
| | | | | 133 | | | |
| | | | | 133 | | | |
| | | | | 133 | | | |
| | | | | 134 | | | |
| | | | | 135 | | | |
| | | | | 135 | | | |
| | | | | 135 | | | |
| | | | | 135 | | | |
| | | | | 136 | | | |
| | | | | 136 | | | |
| | | | | 137 | | | |
| | | | | 148 | | | |
| | | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | | 152 | | | |
| | | | | 152 | | | |
| | | | | 152 | | | |
| | | | | 152 | | | |
| | | | | 153 | | | |
| | | | | 153 | | | |
| | | | | 153 | | | |
| | | | | 154 | | | |
| | | | | 154 | | | |
| | | | | 155 | | | |
| | | | | 155 | | | |
| | | | | 155 | | | |
| | | | | 156 | | |
| | | | | 156 | | | |
| | | | | 157 | | | |
| | | | | 157 | | | |
| | | | | 157 | | | |
| | | | | 158 | | | |
| | | | | 158 | | | |
| | | | | 158 | | | |
| | | | | 159 | | | |
| | | | | 159 | | | |
| | | | | 159 | | | |
| | | | | 159 | | | |
| | | | | 160 | | | |
| | | | | 162 | | | |
| | | | | 163 | | | |
| | | | | 164 | | | |
| | | | | 177 | | | |
| | | | | 179 | | | |
| | | | | 181 | | | |
| | | | | 181 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 182 | | | |
| | | | | 189 | | | |
| | | | | 189 | | | |
| | | | | 190 | | | |
| | | | | 190 | | | |
| | | | | 190 | | | |
| | | | | 190 | | | |
| | | | | 191 | | | |
| | | | | 192 | | | |
| | | | | 197 | | | |
| | | | | 197 | | | |
| | | | | 197 | | | |
| | | | | 198 | | | |
| | | | | 199 | | | |
| | | | | 201 | | | |
| | | | | 202 | | | |
| | | | | 203 | | | |
| | | | | 206 | | | |
| | | | | 207 | | | |
| | | | | 207 | | | |
| | | | | 207 | | | |
| | | | | 208 | | |
| | | | | 209 | | | |
| | | | | 221 | | | |
| | | | | 224 | | | |
| | | | | 249 | | | |
| | | | | 252 | | | |
| | | | | 262 | | | |
| | | | | 268 | | | |
| | | | | 280 | | | |
| | | | | 283 | | | |
| | | | | 283 | | | |
| | | | | 285 | | | |
| | | | | 292 | | | |
| | | | | 295 | | | |
| | | | | 297 | | | |
| | | | | 298 | | | |
| | | | | 299 | | | |
| | | | | 306 | | | |
| | | | | 307 | | | |
| | | | | 313 | | | |
| | | | | 316 | | | |
| | | | | 317 | | | |
| | | | | 323 | | | |
| | | | | F-1 | | | |
| | | | | A-1 | | | |
| | | | | B-1 | | | |
| | | | | C-1 | | | |
| | | | | D-1 | | | |
| | | | | E-1 | | | |
| | | | | F-1 | | | |
| | | | | G-1 | | | |
| | | | | H-1 | | | |
| | | | | I-1 | | | |
| | | | | J-3 | | | |
| | | | | K-1 | | | |
| | | | | L-1 | | | |
| | | | | M-1 | | | |
| | | | | N-1 | | |
| | |
Enterprise Value / Contained Gold
Equivalent Ounce. |
| |||||||||
| | |
Reserves
(US$/oz) |
| |
Reserves & Resources
(US$/oz) |
| ||||||
Alio Gold Inc.
|
| | | $ | 21.2 | | | | | $ | 11.4 | | |
Argonaut Gold Inc.
|
| | | | 39.1 | | | | | | 17.1 | | |
Bullfrog Gold Corp.
|
| | | | nm | | | | | | 22.7 | | |
Corvus Gold Inc.
|
| | | | nm | | | | | | 50.9 | | |
Gold Standard Ventures Corp
|
| | | | 175.1 | | | | | | 79.7 | | |
Liberty Gold Corp.
|
| | | | nm | | | | | | 37.3 | | |
McEwen Mining Inc.
|
| | | | 655.3 | | | | | | 6.3 | | |
Orla Mining Ltd
|
| | | | 160.7 | | | | | | 18.4 | | |
Scorpio Gold Corporation
|
| | | | 7.7 | | | | | | 5.1 | | |
Victoria Gold Corp.
|
| | | | 172.0 | | | | | | 103.2 | | |
Hycroft business
|
| | | | 33.1 | | | | | | 19.2 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Transaction Value /
Contained Gold Equivalent Ounce |
| |||||||||
Target Asset(s)
|
| |
Acquiror
|
| |
Date Announced
|
| |
Reserves
(US$/oz) |
| |
Reserves &
Resources (US$/oz) |
| |||||||||
Denton-Rawhide, NV
|
| | EMX Royalty Corp. | | | | | 12/19/2019 | | | | | $ | 69.7 | | | | | $ | 44.5 | | |
Lincoln Hill-Gold Ridge, Wilco, NV
|
| | Coeur Mining, Inc. | | | | | 10/16/2018 | | | | | | nm | | | | | | 6.4 | | |
Bald Mountain, NV
|
| | Kinross Gold Corp. | | | | | 10/2/2018 | | | | | | 18.3 | | | | | | 5.5 | | |
Florida Canyon, NV
|
| | Alio Gold Inc. | | | | | 3/19/2018 | | | | | | nm | | | | | | 21.0 | | |
Railroad-Pinion, NV
|
| |
Gold Standard Ventures
Corporation |
| | | | 3/31/2017 | | | | | | nm | | | | | | 0.4 | | |
Spring Valley, NV
|
| |
Waterton Global Resource
Management |
| | | | 11/12/2015 | | | | | | nm | | | | | | 31.0 | | |
Mount Hamilton, NV
|
| |
Waterton Nevada Splitter LLC
|
| | | | 6/10/2015 | | | | | | 49.1 | | | | | | 31.2 | | |
Hycroft business
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 33.1 | | | | | | 19.2 | | |
| | |
Price Per Troy Ounce
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metric
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2023
|
| |
2024
|
| |
Long-Term
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Gold Price – Management Price
|
| | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 1,300 | | |
Gold Price – Consensus Price
|
| | | $ | 1,500 | | | | | $ | 1,450 | | | | | $ | 1,438 | | | | | $ | 1,411 | | | | | $ | 1,400 | | | | | $ | 1,388 | | |
Gold Price – Inflation-adjusted Forward Price
|
| | | $ | 1,553 | | | | | $ | 1,542 | | | | | $ | 1,530 | | | | | $ | 1,517 | | | | | $ | 1,506 | | | | | $ | 1,506 | | |
Silver Price – Management Price
|
| | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | |
Silver Price – Consensus Price
|
| | | $ | 17.77 | | | | | $ | 18.00 | | | | | $ | 18.23 | | | | | $ | 17.75 | | | | | $ | 17.50 | | | | | $ | 17.50 | | |
Silver Price – Inflation-adjusted Forward Price
|
| | | $ | 18.06 | | | | | $ | 18.02 | | | | | $ | 17.96 | | | | | $ | 17.88 | | | | | $ | 17.82 | | | | | $ | 17.82 | | |
Metric
|
| |
Net Present Value
|
| |||
| | |
(US dollars in millions)
|
| |||
NPV (Base Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 1,867 | | |
NPV (Base Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 2,179 | | |
NPV (Base Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 2,556 | | |
NPV (Sensitivity Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 1,331 | | |
NPV (Sensitivity Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 1,621 | | |
NPV (Sensitivity Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 1,976 | | |
Selected Company
|
| |
Metric
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
EV/NPV
|
| |
EV/Au Eq.
Resources |
| |
EV/Au Eq.
Reserves |
| |||||||||
Falco Resources Ltd.
|
| | | | 0.19x | | | | | $ | 6 | | | | | $ | 9 | | |
INV Metals Inc.
|
| | | | 0.04x | | | | | $ | 9 | | | | | $ | 11 | | |
Midas Gold Corp.
|
| | | | 0.27x | | | | | $ | 23 | | | | | $ | 32 | | |
Orezone Gold Corporation
|
| | | | 0.13x | | | | | $ | 9 | | | | | $ | 30 | | |
| | |
Selected Companies
|
| |||
Metric
|
| |
Low
|
| |
High
|
|
EV/NPV
|
| |
0.04x
|
| |
0.27x
|
|
EV/Au Eq. Resources
|
| |
$6
|
| |
$23
|
|
EV/Au Eq. Reserves
|
| |
$9
|
| |
$32
|
|
| | |
Implied Enterprise Value
(US dollars in millions) |
| |||||||||
Metric
|
| |
Low
|
| |
High
|
| ||||||
EV/NPV (Base Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 75 | | | | | $ | 504 | | |
EV/ NPV (Base Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 87 | | | | | $ | 588 | | |
EV/ NPV (Base Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 102 | | | | | $ | 690 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 53 | | | | | $ | 359 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 65 | | | | | $ | 438 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 79 | | | | | $ | 534 | | |
EV/ Au Eq. Resources
|
| | | $ | 187 | | | | | $ | 717 | | |
EV/ Au Eq. Reserves
|
| | | $ | 163 | | | | | $ | 578 | | |
Announcement Date
|
| |
Target
|
| |
Acquiror
|
|
September 23, 2019 | | | Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd. | | | Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd. | |
August 26, 2019 | | | Echo Resources Limited | | |
Northern Star Resources Limited
|
|
June 21, 2018 | | | Dalradian Resources Inc. | | | Orion Resource Partners | |
November 7, 2017 | | | AuRico Metals Inc. | | | Centerra Gold Inc. | |
October 25, 2017 | | | NewCastle Gold Ltd. | | | Trek Mining Inc. | |
June 28, 2017 | | | Avnel Gold Mining Limited | | | Endeavor Mining Corporation | |
February 28, 2016 | | | Amara Mining Plc | | | Perseus Mining Limited | |
October 21, 2014 | | | Fruta del Norte Project | | | Lundin Gold Inc. | |
May 31, 2013 | | | Rainy River Resources Ltd. | | | New Gold Inc. | |
October 15, 2012 | | | Prodigy Gold Inc. | | | Argonaut Gold Inc. | |
April 27, 2012 | | | Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc. | | | IAMGOLD Corporation | |
Announcement Date
|
| |
Target
|
| |
Acquiror
|
| |
EV/NPV
|
| |
EV/ Au. Eq. Resources
|
|
September 23, 2019 | | |
Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd.
|
| |
Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd.
|
| |
0.36x
|
| |
$50
|
|
August 26, 2019 | | |
Echo Resources Limited
|
| |
Northern Star Resources Limited
|
| |
Not Available
|
| |
$61
|
|
June 21, 2018 | | |
Dalradian Resources Inc.
|
| |
Orion Resource Partners
|
| |
0.39x
|
| |
$40
|
|
November 7, 2017
|
| |
AuRico Metals Inc.
|
| |
Centerra Gold Inc.
|
| |
Not Available
|
| |
$37
|
|
October 25, 2017 | | |
NewCastle Gold Ltd.
|
| |
Trek Mining Inc.
|
| |
0.43x
|
| |
$34
|
|
June 28, 2017 | | |
Avnel Gold Mining Limited
|
| |
Endeavor Mining Corporation
|
| |
0.21x
|
| |
$18
|
|
February 28, 2016
|
| |
Amara Mining Plc
|
| |
Perseus Mining Limited
|
| |
Not Available
|
| |
$12
|
|
October 21, 2014 | | |
Fruta del Norte Project
|
| |
Lundin Gold Inc.
|
| |
Not Available
|
| |
$24
|
|
May 31, 2013 | | |
Rainy River Resources Ltd.
|
| |
New Gold Inc.
|
| |
0.50x
|
| |
$35
|
|
October 15, 2012 | | |
Prodigy Gold Inc.
|
| |
Argonaut Gold Inc.
|
| |
0.47x
|
| |
$43
|
|
April 27, 2012 | | |
Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc.
|
| |
IAMGOLD Corporation
|
| |
0.51x
|
| |
$74
|
|
Metric
|
| |
Low
|
| |
High
|
|
EV/NPV
|
| |
0.21x
|
| |
0.51x
|
|
EV/ Au. Eq. Resources (inclusive of Au. Eq. Reserves)
|
| |
$12
|
| |
$39
|
|
Metric
|
| |
Implied Enterprise Value
(US dollars in millions) |
| |||||||||
| | |
Low
|
| |
High
|
| ||||||
EV/NPV (Base Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 392 | | | | | $ | 952 | | |
EV/ NPV (Base Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 458 | | | | | $ | 1,111 | | |
EV/ NPV (Base Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 537 | | | | | $ | 1,304 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Management Price)
|
| | | $ | 279 | | | | | $ | 679 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Consensus Price)
|
| | | $ | 340 | | | | | $ | 827 | | |
EV/ NPV (Sensitivity Case – Forward Price)
|
| | | $ | 415 | | | | | $ | 1,008 | | |
EV/ Au Eq. Resources (inclusive of Au. Eq. Reserves)
|
| | | $ | 374 | | | | | $ | 1,216 | | |
| | |
Years 1 – 5
|
| |
Years 1 – 10
|
| |
LOM
|
| |||||||||
Production AuEq (k oz)
|
| | | | 908 | | | | | | 2,812 | | | | | | 12,432 | | |
AISC(1)(3) ($ / oz)
|
| | | $ | 775 | | | | | $ | 766 | | | | | $ | 548 | | |
Unlevered Free Cash Flow(2)(3)(4) ($ mm)
|
| | | $ | 123 | | | | | $ | 786 | | | | | $ | 5,062 | | |
Capital ($ mm)
|
| | | $ | 225 | | | | | $ | 491 | | | | | $ | 758 | | |
Case
|
| |
Metal Prices ($/oz.)
|
| |
NPV
Cumulative Unlevered FCF |
| |
NPV@ 5%
|
| |
NPV @ 10%
|
| |
After Tax IRR
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Au
|
| |
Ag
|
| |
$ Billions
|
| |
$ Billions
|
| |
$ Billions
|
| | | | | | | |||||||||||||||
1
|
| | | $ | 1,200 | | | | | $ | 16.50 | | | | | $ | 4.2 | | | | | $ | 1.7 | | | | | $ | 0.8 | | | | | | 80% | | |
2 | | | | $ | 1,300 | | | | | $ | 17.33 | | | | | $ | 5.1 | | | | | $ | 2.1 | | | | | $ | 1.1 | | | | | | 148% | | |
3
|
| | | $ | 1,400 | | | | | $ | 18.67 | | | | | $ | 6.1 | | | | | $ | 2.6 | | | | | $ | 1.3 | | | | | | 304% | | |
4
|
| | | $ | 1,500 | | | | | $ | 20.00 | | | | | $ | 7.1 | | | | | $ | 3.0 | | | | | $ | 1.6 | | | | | | N/A | | |
| | |
20%
Decrease |
| |
10%
Decrease |
| |
Base
Case |
| |
10%
Increase |
| |
20%
Increase |
| |||||||||||||||
Mining Cost
|
| | | $ | 2.41B | | | | | $ | 2.25B | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 1.91B | | | | | $ | 1.75B | | |
Processing Cost
|
| | | $ | 2.43B | | | | | $ | 2.26B | | | | | $ | 2.1B | | | | | $ | 1.90B | | | | | $ | 1.72B | | |
CapEx
|
| | | $ | 2.18B | | | | | $ | 2.13B | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 2.03B | | | | | $ | 1.98B | | |
Sources
|
| | | | | | | |
Uses(3)
|
| | | | | | |
Cash in MUDS Trust Account(1)
|
| | | $ | 96.6 | | | |
Remaining Cash(4)
|
| | | $ | 64.0 | | |
Opening Cash(2)
|
| | | $ | 5.0 | | | |
Opening Cash
|
| | | $ | 5.0 | | |
Private Investment
|
| | | $ | 3.4 | | | |
First Lien Notes
|
| | | $ | 125.5 | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement
|
| | | $ | 70.0 | | | |
Jacobs Notes
|
| | | $ | 6.9 | | |
Sprott Royalty Agreement
|
| | | $ | 30.0 | | | |
Transaction Fees
|
| | | $ | 13.6 | | |
Incremental Equity Investment
|
| | | $ | 10.0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total Sources
|
| | | $ | 215.0 | | | |
Total Uses
|
| | | $ | 215.0 | | |
Sources
|
| | | | | | | |
Uses(3)
|
| | |||||
Cash in MUDS Trust Account(1)
|
| | | $ | 35.0 | | | |
Remaining Cash(4)
|
| | | $ | 65.6 | | |
Opening Cash(2)
|
| | | $ | 5.0 | | | |
Opening Cash
|
| | | $ | 5.0 | | |
Private Investment
|
| | | $ | 65.0 | | | |
First Lien Notes
|
| | | $ | 125.5 | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement
|
| | | $ | 70.0 | | | |
Jacobs Notes
|
| | | $ | 6.9 | | |
Sprott Royalty Agreement
|
| | | $ | 30.0 | | | |
Transaction Fees
|
| | | $ | 12.0 | | |
Incremental Equity Investment
|
| | | $ | 10.0 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total Sources
|
| | | $ | 215.0 | | | |
Total Uses
|
| | | $ | 215.0 | | |
Income Statement Data:
|
| |
For the
nine months ended September 30, 2019 |
| |
For the
nine months ended September 30, 2018 |
| |
For the
year ended December 31, 2018 |
| |
Period from
August 28, 2017 (inception) through December 31, 2017 |
| ||||||||||||
Loss from operations
|
| | | $ | (453,369) | | | | | $ | (407,781) | | | | | $ | (609,581) | | | | | $ | (2,784) | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 3,481,360 | | | | | | 1,809,977 | | | | | | 2,844,993 | | | | | | — | | |
Net income (loss)
|
| | | | 2,307,762 | | | | | | 1,053,601 | | | | | | 1,679,963 | | | | | | (2,784) | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class A common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Basic and diluted net income per share, Class A
|
| | | $ | 0.13 | | | | | $ | 0.06 | | | | | $ | 0.10 | | | | | | — | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class B common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | |
Basic and diluted net loss per share, Class A
|
| | | $ | (0.07) | | | | | $ | (0.05) | | | | | $ | (0.08) | | | | | $ | (0.00) | | |
Balance Sheet Data:
|
| |
As of
September 30, 2019 |
| |
As of
December 31, 2018 |
| |
As of
December 31, 2017 |
| |||||||||
Trust account, restricted
|
| | | | 214,741,546 | | | | | | 212,916,691 | | | | | | — | | |
Total assets
|
| | | | 215,093,234 | | | | | | 213,504,932 | | | | | | 191,445 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | | | 7,317,381 | | | | | | 8,036,841 | | | | | | 169,229 | | |
Value of common stock which may be redeemed for cash
|
| | | | 202,775,852 | | | | | | 200,468,083 | | | | | | — | | |
Stockholders’ equity
|
| | | | 5,000,001 | | | | | | 5,000,008 | | | | | | 191,445 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No Redemption Scenario
|
| |
Maximum Redemption Scenario
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(a)
Seller Subsidiaries |
| |
(b)
Mudrick Capital Acquisition |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (No Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (No Redemptions) |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (Max Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (Max Redemptions) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash
|
| | | $ | 4,963 | | | | | $ | 267 | | | | | | 518 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 518 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (1,590) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (1,590) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25,000 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 25,000 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 71,332 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 98,600 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 98,600 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13,668 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 20,000 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (132,625) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (132,625) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (13,589) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (12,014) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | $ | 66,544 | | | | | | 65,000 | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | $ | 68,119 | | |
Restricted cash
|
| | | | 2,518 | | | | | | | | | | | | (2,518) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (2,518) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | |
Income tax receivable
|
| | | | | | | | | | 55 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 55 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 55 | | |
Inventories
|
| | | | 4,668 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,668 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,668 | | |
Ore on leach pads
|
| | | | 12,593 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 12,593 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 12,593 | | |
Prepaids and other
|
| | | | 2,166 | | | | | | 30 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2,196 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2,196 | | |
Current assets
|
| | | | 26,908 | | | | | | 352 | | | | | | 58,796 | | | | | | | | | | | | 86,056 | | | | | | 60,371 | | | | | | | | | | | | 87,631 | | |
Investments held in Trust account
|
| | | | | | | | | | 214,742 | | | | | | (214,742) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (214,742) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | |
Restricted cash
|
| | | | 39,320 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 39,320 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 39,320 | | |
Plant and equipment, net
|
| | | | 51,397 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 51,397 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 51,397 | | |
Deferred tax asset, net
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
k
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
k
|
| | | | | — | | |
Other assets, non-current
|
| | | | 4,152 | | | | | | | | | | | | (4,032) | | | | |
|
j
|
| | | | | 120 | | | | | | (4,032) | | | | |
|
j
|
| | | | | 120 | | |
Total assets
|
| | | $ | 121,777 | | | | | $ | 215,094 | | | | | $ | (159,978) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 176,893 | | | | | $ | (158,403) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 178,468 | | |
Liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable
|
| | | $ | 11,123 | | | | | $ | 38 | | | | | | (1,025) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | $ | 10,136 | | | | | | (1,025) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | $ | 10,136 | | |
Interest payable
|
| | | | 599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (599) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (599) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | |
Other liabilities, current
|
| | | | 3,305 | | | | | | | | | | | | (1,590) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 1,715 | | | | | | (1,590) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 1,715 | | |
Debt, current
|
| | | | 318,581 | | | | | | | | | | | | (318,581) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (318,581) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | |
Current liabilities
|
| | | | 333,608 | | | | | | 38 | | | | | | (321,795) | | | | | | | | | | | | 11,851 | | | | | | (321,795) | | | | | | | | | | | | 11,851 | | |
Deferred underwriting fees
|
| | | | | | | | | | 7,280 | | | | | | (7,280) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (7,280) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | — | | |
Other liabilities, non-current
|
| | | | 18 | | | | | | | | | | | | (18) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (18) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | |
Debt, non-current
|
| | | | 199,837 | | | | | | | | | | | | 64,350 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 64,350 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (199,837) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (199,837) | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 54,744 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 54,744 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (4,032) | | | | |
|
j
|
| | | | | 115,062 | | | | | | (4,032) | | | | |
|
j
|
| | | | | 115,062 | | |
Royalty agreement
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 30,000 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | 30,000 | | | | | | 30,000 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | 30,000 | | |
Asset retirement obligation,
non-current |
| | | | 6,149 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6,149 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6,149 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | | | 539,612 | | | | | | 7,318 | | | | | | (383,868) | | | | | | | | | | | | 163,062 | | | | | | (383,868) | | | | | | | | | | | | 163,062 | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No Redemption Scenario
|
| |
Maximum Redemption Scenario
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(a)
Seller Subsidiaries |
| |
(b)
Mudrick Capital Acquisition |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (No Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (No Redemptions) |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (Max Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (Max Redemptions) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | | | | | | | 202,776 | | | | | | (202,776) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (202,776) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | |
Preferred stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
Class A Common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 3 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | | 5 | | | | | | 1 | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | | 5 | | |
Class B Common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | (1) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (1) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | — | | |
Common stock
|
| | | | 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | (3) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (3) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | — | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | | | 5,184 | | | | | | 1,014 | | | | | | (2,964) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (2,964) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 84,365 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 13,034 | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,250 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 4,250 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13,668 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 20,000 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 320,468 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 320,468 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,780 | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 2,000 | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | | 430,765 | | | | | | 64,999 | | | | |
|
i
|
| | | | | 427,985 | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | | | (423,022) | | | | | | 3,985 | | | | | | 11,177 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 11,177 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 985 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 985 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (10,064) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | (416,939) | | | | | | (5,709) | | | | |
|
h
|
| | | | | (412,584) | | |
Total stockholders’ (deficit) equity
|
| | | | (417,835) | | | | | | 207,776 | | | | | | 223,890 | | | | | | | | | | | | 13,831 | | | | | | 225,465 | | | | | | | | | | | | 15,406 | | |
Total liabilities and stockholders’ (deficit) equity
|
| | | $ | 121,777 | | | | | $ | 215,094 | | | | | $ | (159,978) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 176,893 | | | | | $ | (158,403) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 178,468 | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No Redemption Scenario
|
| |
Maximum Redemption Scenario
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(a)
Seller Subsidiaries |
| |
(b)
Mudrick Capital Acquisition |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (No Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (No Redemptions) |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (Max Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (Max Redemptions) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Revenues
|
| | | $ | 2,707 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 2,707 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
$
|
2,707
|
| |
Cost of sales: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Production costs
|
| | | | 1,650 | | | | | | | | | | | | 41 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 1,691 | | | | | | 41 | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 1,691 | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 167 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 167 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | 167 | | |
Write-down of production inventories
|
| | | | 14,347 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 14,347 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | 14,347 | | |
Total cost of sales
|
| | | | 16,164 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 41 | | | | | | | | | | | | 16,205 | | | | | | 41 | | | | | | | | | | | | 16,205 | | |
Operating expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Project and development
|
| | | | 7,408 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7,408 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7,408 | | |
Care and maintenance
|
| | | | 3,529 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,529 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,529 | | |
Pre-production depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 1,066 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,066 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,066 | | |
Accretion
|
| | | | 317 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 317 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 317 | | |
General and administrative
|
| | | | 4,660 | | | | | | 453 | | | | | | (1,159) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | 3,954 | | | | | | (1,159) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | 3,954 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (30,437) | | | | | | (453) | | | | | | 1,118 | | | | | | | | | | | | (29,772) | | | | | | 1,118 | | | | | | | | | | | | (29,772) | | |
Other income (expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 620 | | | | | | 3,481 | | | | | | (3,481) | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | 620 | | | | | | (3,481) | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | 620 | | |
Interest expense
|
| | | | (46,774) | | | | | | | | | | | | 38,504 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | (8,270) | | | | | | 38,504 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | (8,270) | | |
Gain (loss) on retirement of debt
|
| | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
Loss before reorganization items, net and income taxes
|
| | | | (76,591) | | | | | | 3,028 | | | | | | 36,141 | | | | | | | | | | | | (37,422) | | | | | | 36,141 | | | | | | | | | | | | (37,422) | | |
Reorganization items, net
|
| | | | (888) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (888) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (888) | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | | | (77,479) | | | | | | 3,028 | | | | | | 36,141 | | | | | | | | | | | | (38,310) | | | | | | 36,141 | | | | | | | | | | | | (38,310) | | |
Income tax
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (720) | | | | | | 720 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | 720 | | | | |
|
g
|
| | | | | — | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (77,479) | | | | | $ | 2,308 | | | | | $ | 36,861 | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (38,310) | | | | | $ | 36,861 | | | | | | | | | | |
$
|
(38,310
)
|
| |
Loss per share: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | | $ | (28.71) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.77) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.77) | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | | | 2,698,851 | | | | | | | | | | | | 47,376,027 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 47,321,399 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No Redemption Scenario
|
| |
Maximum Redemption Scenario
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(a)
Seller Subsidiaries |
| |
(b)
Mudrick Capital Acquisition |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (No Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (No Redemptions) |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments (Max Redemptions) |
| | | | | | | |
Pro Forma
Combined (Max Redemptions) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Operating expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Project and development
|
| | | | 4,916 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,916 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4,916 | | |
Care and maintenance
|
| | | | 8,961 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8,961 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8,961 | | |
Pre-production depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 3,472 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,472 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,472 | | |
Accretion
|
| | | | 1,271 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,271 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,271 | | |
Write-down of supplies inventories
|
| | | | 144 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 144 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 144 | | |
Write-down of mineral properties
|
| | | | 1,032 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,032 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,032 | | |
Reduction in asset retirment obligation
|
| | | | (16,987) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (16,987) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (16,987) | | |
General and administrative
|
| | | | 5,342 | | | | | | 610 | | | | | | (704) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 5,248 | | | | | | (704) | | | | |
|
c
|
| | | | | 5,248 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (8,151) | | | | | | (610) | | | | | | 704 | | | | | | | | | | | | (8,057) | | | | | | 704 | | | | | | | | | | | | (8,057) | | |
Other income (expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 464 | | | | | | 2,845 | | | | | | (2,845) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | 464 | | | | | | (2,845) | | | | |
|
d
|
| | | | | 464 | | |
Interest expense
|
| | | | (50,893) | | | | | | | | | | | | 44,740 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | (6,153) | | | | | | 44,740 | | | | |
|
e
|
| | | | | (6,153) | | |
Gain (loss) on retirement of debt
|
| | | | 3,321 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,321 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,321 | | |
Loss before reorganization items, net and income taxes
|
| | | | (55,259) | | | | | | 2,235 | | | | | | 42,599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (10,425) | | | | | | 42,599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (10,425) | | |
Reorganization items, net
|
| | | | (399) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (399) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (399) | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | | | (55,658) | | | | | | 2,235 | | | | | | 42,599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (10,824) | | | | | | 42,599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (10,824) | | |
Income tax
|
| | | | (145) | | | | | | (555) | | | | | | 555 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | (145) | | | | | | 555 | | | | |
|
f
|
| | | | | (145) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (55,803) | | | | | $ | 1,680 | | | | | $ | 43,154 | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (10,969) | | | | | $ | 43,154 | | | | | | | | | | |
$
|
(10,969
)
|
| |
Loss per share: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | | $ | (21.10) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | | | 2,645,194 | | | | | | | | | | | | 47,376,027 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 47,321,399 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
Preliminary Estimated Consideration
|
| | | |
(b)
Maximum Redemptions |
| |||||||
Cash: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investments held in Trust account(1)
|
| | | $ | 71,332 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement(2)
|
| | | | 70,000 | | | | | | 70,000 | | |
Royalty Agreement(3)
|
| | | | 30,000 | | | | | | 30,000 | | |
Sponsor forward purchase (MUDS units and shares)(4)
|
| | | | 25,000 | | | | | | 25,000 | | |
Proceeds from PIPE Investment (MUDS stock)(5)
|
| | | | 13,668 | | | | | | 20,000 | | |
Backstop Agreement (MUDS stock and warrants)(6)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 65,000 | | |
Class A common stock: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
MUDS stock issued to holder of Seller’s 1.5 Lien Notes(7)
|
| | | | 145,306 | | | | | | 145,306 | | |
MUDS stock issued to holders of Seller’s 2.0 Lien Notes(8)
|
| | | | 175,166 | | | | | | 175,166 | | |
MUDS stock issued to Seller’s common stockholders(9)
|
| | | | 4,220 | | | | | | 4,220 | | |
Assumed debt: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Newly-issued Subordinated Notes(10)
|
| | | | 54,744 | | | | | | 54,744 | | |
Estimated Consideration, Gross
|
| | | $ | 589,435 | | | | | $ | 589,435 | | |
Transaction fees and costs: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Management incentive compensation(11)
|
| | | $ | (7,339) | | | | | $ | (5,764) | | |
Deferred underwriting fees(12)
|
| | | | (7,280) | | | | | | (4,500) | | |
Investment banking advisory services(13)
|
| | | | (3,750) | | | | | | (3,750) | | |
Estimated Fees and Costs
|
| | | $ | (18,369) | | | | | $ | (14,014) | | |
Estimated Consideration, Net
|
| | | $ | 571,066 | | | | | $ | 575,421 | | |
| | |
Seller
Subsidiaries Balance |
| |
Adjustments
|
| |
Cash
Repayments |
| |
Issuance of
New Subord. Notes |
| |
Equity
Conversions / Exchanges |
| |
Pro Forma
Combined |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Debt, current | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 125,468 | | | | | | | | | | | | (125,468) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | — | | |
1.25 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 54,744 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (54,744) | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 132,096 | | | | | | 13,210 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | (145,306) | | | | | | — | | |
Promissory Note
|
| | | | 6,558 | | | | | | | | | | | | (6,558) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
Less, debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (285) | | | | | | 285 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
| | | | $ | 318,581 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | — | | |
Debt, non-current | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2.0 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 200,878 | | | | | | (25,712) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (175,166) | | | | | | — | | |
Less, debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (1,041) | | | | | | 1,041 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | |
| | | | $ | 199,837 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | — | | |
Interest payable | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 599 | | | | | | | | | | | | (599) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | | | | | | | | | $ | (11,177) | | | | | $ | (132,625) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (320,471) | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Seller
Subsidiaries Balance |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments |
| |
Pro Forma
Combined |
| |||||||||
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 7,571 | | | | | | (7,571) | | | | | | — | | |
1.25 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 2,757 | | | | | | (2,757) | | | | | | — | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 13,809 | | | | | | (13,809) | | | | | | — | | |
2.0 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 21,005 | | | | | | (21,005) | | | | | | — | | |
Promissory Note
|
| | | | 570 | | | | | | (570) | | | | | | — | | |
Amortization of debt issuance costs
|
| | | | 1,513 | | | | | | (1,513) | | | | | | — | | |
Less: capitalized interest
|
| | | | (451) | | | | | | | | | | | | (451) | | |
Newly-issued Subordinated Notes
|
| | | | | | | | | | 4,106 | | | | | | 4,106 | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement
|
| | | | | | | | | | 4,615 | | | | | | 4,615 | | |
| | | | $ | 46,774 | | | | | $ | (38,504) | | | | | $ | 8,270 | | |
|
| | |
Seller
Subsidiaries Balance |
| |
Pro Forma
Adjustments |
| |
Pro Forma
Combined |
| |||||||||
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 9,589 | | | | | | (9,589) | | | | | | — | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 14,012 | | | | | | (14,012) | | | | | | — | | |
2.0 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 24,923 | | | | | | (24,923) | | | | | | — | | |
Promissory Note
|
| | | | 567 | | | | | | (567) | | | | | | — | | |
Amortization of debt issuance costs
|
| | | | 1,802 | | | | | | (1,802) | | | | | | — | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement
|
| | | | | | | | | | 6,153 | | | | | | 6,153 | | |
| | | | $ | 50,893 | | | | | $ | (44,740) | | | | | $ | 6,153 | | |
Shares of Class A common stock
|
| |
No
Redemptions |
| |
Max
Redemptions |
| ||||||
MUDS’ existing stockholders(1)
|
| | | | 6,909,287 | | | | | | — | | |
Sponsor forward purchase(2)
|
| | | | 8,325,000 | | | | | | 8,325,000 | | |
PIPE subscription(3)
|
| | | | 1,366,800 | | | | | | 2,000,000 | | |
Exchange and conversions of Seller’s debt(4)
|
| | | | 32,078,044 | | | | | | 32,078,044 | | |
Issuances to Seller’s common stockholders(5)
|
| | | | 421,956 | | | | | | 421,956 | | |
Deferred underwriting fees(6)
|
| | | | 478,000 | | | | | | 200,000 | | |
Sprott Credit Agreement(7)
|
| | | | 495,791 | | | | | | 495,250 | | |
Backstop Agreement(8)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 6,500,000 | | |
| | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
| | |
Nine months ended
September 30, 2019 |
| |
Year ended
December 31, 208 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
No
Redemptions |
| |
Max
Redemptions |
| |
No
Redemptions |
| |
Max
Redemptions |
| ||||||||||||
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (38,310) | | | | | $ | (38,310) | | | | | $ | (10,969) | | | | | $ | (10,969) | | |
Basic and diluted shares outstanding
|
| | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
Basic and diluted loss per share
|
| | | $ | (0.77) | | | | | $ | (0.77) | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | |
(in thousands except per share amounts)
|
| |
Seller
Subsidiaries |
| |
Mudrick
Capital Acquisition Corporation |
| |
Pro Forma
Combined (No Redemptions) |
| |
Pro Forma
Combined (Max Redemptions) |
| ||||||||||||
Nine months ended September 30, 2019 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock
|
| | | $ | (77,479) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (38,310) | | | | | $ | (38,310) | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to Class A common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 2,672 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to Class B common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | (364) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock
|
| | | | 2,698,851 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
Class A common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Income (loss) per share: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | $ | (28.71) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.77) | | | | | $ | (0.77) | | |
Class A common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 0.13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | (0.07) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Year ended December 31, 2018 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to common stock
|
| | | $ | (55,803) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (10,969) | | | | | $ | (10,969) | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to Class A common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 2,096 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) attributable to Class B common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | (416) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock
|
| | | | 2,645,194 | | | | | | | | | | | | 50,074,878 | | | | | | 50,020,250 | | |
Class A common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B common stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Income (loss) per share: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | $ | (21.10) | | | | | | | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | | | | $ | (0.22) | | |
Class A common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 0.10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Class B common stock, basic and diluted
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | (0.08) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name
|
| |
Age
|
| |
Position
|
|
Jason Mudrick | | |
44
|
| | Chief Executive Officer and Director | |
Victor Danh | | |
41
|
| | Vice President | |
David Kirsch | | |
40
|
| | Vice President and Director | |
Glenn Springer | | |
47
|
| | Chief Financial Officer | |
Dennis Stogsdill | | |
49
|
| | Director | |
Timothy Daileader | | |
49
|
| | Director | |
Dr. Brian Kushner | | |
61
|
| | Director | |
| | | | Submitted by: | |
| | | |
Audit Committee of the MUDS Board,
Dennis Stogsdill Timothy Daileader Dr. Brian Kushner |
|
Mineral Resources(1)
|
| |
Gold (Oz)
|
| |
Silver (Oz)
|
| ||||||
Measured(2) | | | | | 649 | | | | | | 15,554 | | |
Indicated(2) | | | | | 3,050 | | | | | | 93,438 | | |
Inferred
|
| | | | 5,769 | | | | | | 129,754 | | |
Domain
|
| |
Nominal* Target
Oxidation, % |
| |
CN — Leach Time,
days |
| |
Au Recovery, %
|
| |
Ag Recovery, %
|
| ||||||||||||
Northwest (Bay)
|
| | | | 31 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 55 | | | | | | 55 | | |
West (Central)
|
| | | | 40 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 70 | | | | | | 70 | | |
Southwest (Camel) Above Water Table
|
| | | | 40 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 70 | | | | | | 70 | | |
Southwest (Camel) Below Water Table
|
| | | | 40 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 65 | | | | | | 70 | | |
Brimstone
|
| | | | 40 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 65 | | | | | | 70 | | |
Vortex
|
| | | | 40 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 65 | | | | | | 70 | | |
Year
|
| |
High
|
| |
Low
|
| |
Average
|
| |||||||||
2009
|
| | | | 1,213 | | | | | | 810 | | | | | | 972 | | |
2010
|
| | | | 1,421 | | | | | | 1,058 | | | | | | 1,225 | | |
2011
|
| | | | 1,895 | | | | | | 1,319 | | | | | | 1,572 | | |
2012
|
| | | | 1,792 | | | | | | 1,540 | | | | | | 1,669 | | |
2013
|
| | | | 1,694 | | | | | | 1,192 | | | | | | 1,411 | | |
2014
|
| | | | 1,385 | | | | | | 1,142 | | | | | | 1,266 | | |
2015
|
| | | | 1,296 | | | | | | 1,049 | | | | | | 1,160 | | |
2016
|
| | | | 1,366 | | | | | | 1,077 | | | | | | 1,251 | | |
2017
|
| | | | 1,346 | | | | | | 1,151 | | | | | | 1,257 | | |
2018
|
| | | | 1,355 | | | | | | 1,178 | | | | | | 1,268 | | |
2019
|
| | | | 1,540 | | | | | | 1,270 | | | | | | 1,393 | | |
2020 (through February 12, 2020)
|
| | | | 1,584 | | | | | | 1,527 | | | | | | 1,562 | | |
Classification
|
| |
Material
|
| |
Tons (kt)
|
| |
Contained Grade
|
| |
Contained Metal
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AuFa OPT
|
| |
AuCn OPT
|
| |
AgFa OPT
|
| |
S%
|
| |
Au (koz)
|
| |
Ag (koz)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Measured
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 5,650 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.224 | | | | | | 1.79 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 1,267 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 21,746 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.186 | | | | | | 1.80 | | | | | | 232 | | | | | | 4,038 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 37,512 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.273 | | | | | | 1.85 | | | | | | 356 | | | | | | 10,248 | | | ||
| | | | | | | | 64,908 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.240 | | | | | | 1.83 | | | | | | 649 | | | | | | 15,554 | | |
Indicated
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 2,619 | | | | | | 0.006 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.229 | | | | | | 1.89 | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | 599 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 16,293 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.003 | | | | | | 0.329 | | | | | | 1.79 | | | | | | 117 | | | | | | 5,369 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 310,102 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.282 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 2,916 | | | | | | 87,470 | | | ||
| | | | | | | | 329,014 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.284 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,050 | | | | | | 93,438 | | |
Measured and Indicated
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 8,268 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.226 | | | | | | 1.82 | | | | | | 77 | | | | | | 1,867 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 38,039 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.247 | | | | | | 1.80 | | | | | | 349 | | | | | | 9,407 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 347,614 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.281 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,272 | | | | | | 97,718 | | | ||
| | | | | | 393,922 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.277 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,699 | | | | | | 108,992 | | | ||
Inferred
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 6,191 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.267 | | | | | | 1.72 | | | | | | 44 | | | | | | 1,651 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 20,148 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.276 | | | | | | 1.74 | | | | | | 156 | | | | | | 5,570 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 568,704 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.214 | | | | | | 1.76 | | | | | | 5,516 | | | | | | 121,930 | | | ||
| Fill | | | | | 4,018 | | | | | | 0.013 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.150 | | | | | | 0.63 | | | | | | 53 | | | | | | 603 | | | ||
| | | | | | | | 599,062 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.217 | | | | | | 1.76 | | | | | | 5,769 | | | | | | 129,754 | | |
| | |
Tons
|
| |
Grades, oz/t
|
| |
Contained Oz (000s)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(000s)
|
| |
Au
|
| |
Ag
|
| |
Au
|
| |
Ag
|
| |||||||||||||||
Proven (Heap Leach) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Oxide ROM
|
| | | | 22,476 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.230 | | | | | | 205 | | | | | | 5,211 | | |
Transition ROM
|
| | | | 4,095 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.190 | | | | | | 32 | | | | | | 759 | | |
Oxide 3∕4” Crushed
|
| | | | 15,252 | | | | | | 0.012 | | | | | | 0.720 | | | | | | 184 | | | | | | 10,926 | | |
Transition 3∕4” Crushed
|
| | | | 4,399 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.310 | | | | | | 24 | | | | | | 1,367 | | |
Transition 1∕2” Crushed
|
| | | | 90,206 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.450 | | | | | | 948 | | | | | | 40,365 | | |
Sulfide 1∕2” Crushed
|
| | | | 250,906 | | | | | | 0.012 | | | | | | 0.470 | | | | | | 2,940 | | | | | | 116,818 | | |
Total Proven Heap Leach
|
| | | | 387,334 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.450 | | | | | | 4,333 | | | | | | 175,446 | | |
Probable (Heap Leach) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Oxide ROM
|
| | | | 13,145 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.230 | | | | | | 71 | | | | | | 3,005 | | |
Transition ROM
|
| | | | 3,660 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.140 | | | | | | 20 | | | | | | 505 | | |
Oxide 3∕4” Crushed
|
| | | | 3,001 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.690 | | | | | | 29 | | | | | | 2,063 | | |
Transition 3∕4” Crushed
|
| | | | 1,304 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.490 | | | | | | 5 | | | | | | 644 | | |
Transition 1∕2” Crushed
|
| | | | 52,467 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.460 | | | | | | 504 | | | | | | 24,043 | | |
Sulfide 1∕2” Crushed
|
| | | | 663,071 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.410 | | | | | | 6,936 | | | | | | 272,271 | | |
Total Probable Heap Leach
|
| | | | 736,648 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.410 | | | | | | 7,565 | | | | | | 302,531 | | |
Total Probable Sulfide Stockpile 1∕2” Crushed
|
| | | | 9,079 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.380 | | | | | | 98 | | | | | | 3,422 | | |
TOTAL PROVEN & PROBABLE MINERAL RESERVES
|
| | | | 1,133,061 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.425 | | | | | | 11,996 | | | | | | 481,399 | | |
Waste
|
| | | | 1,321,853 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total Tons
|
| | | | 2,454,914 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Strip Ratio
|
| | | | 1.17 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Classification
|
| |
Material
|
| |
Tons (kt)
|
| |
Contained Grade
|
| |
Contained Metal
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AuFa OPT
|
| |
AuCn OPT
|
| |
AgFa OPT
|
| |
S%
|
| |
Au (koz)
|
| |
Ag (koz)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Measured Mineral Resources
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 5,650 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.224 | | | | | | 1.79 | | | | | | 60 | | | | | | 1,267 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 21,746 | | | | | | 0.011 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.186 | | | | | | 1.80 | | | | | | 232 | | | | | | 4,038 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 37,512 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.273 | | | | | | 1.85 | | | | | | 356 | | | | | | 10,248 | | | ||
| | | | | | 64,908 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.240 | | | | | | 1.83 | | | | | | 649 | | | | | | 15,554 | | | ||
Indicated Mineral Resources
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 2,619 | | | | | | 0.006 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.229 | | | | | | 1.89 | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | 599 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 16,293 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.003 | | | | | | 0.329 | | | | | | 1.79 | | | | | | 117 | | | | | | 5,369 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 310,102 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.282 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 2,916 | | | | | | 87,470 | | | ||
| | | | | | 329,014 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.284 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,050 | | | | | | 93,438 | | | ||
Measured And Indicated Mineral Resources
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 8,268 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.226 | | | | | | 1.82 | | | | | | 77 | | | | | | 1,867 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 38,039 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.247 | | | | | | 1.80 | | | | | | 349 | | | | | | 9,407 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 347,614 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.281 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,272 | | | | | | 97,718 | | | ||
| | | | | | 393,922 | | | | | | 0.009 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.277 | | | | | | 1.81 | | | | | | 3,699 | | | | | | 108,992 | | | ||
Inferred Mineral Resources
|
| |
Oxide
|
| | | | 6,191 | | | | | | 0.007 | | | | | | 0.005 | | | | | | 0.267 | | | | | | 1.72 | | | | | | 44 | | | | | | 1,651 | | |
| Transition | | | | | 20,148 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.004 | | | | | | 0.276 | | | | | | 1.74 | | | | | | 156 | | | | | | 5,570 | | | ||
| Sulfide | | | | | 568,704 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.214 | | | | | | 1.76 | | | | | | 5,516 | | | | | | 121,930 | | | ||
| Fill | | | | | 4,018 | | | | | | 0.013 | | | | | | 0.008 | | | | | | 0.150 | | | | | | 0.63 | | | | | | 53 | | | | | | 603 | | | ||
| | | | | | 599,062 | | | | | | 0.010 | | | | | | 0.002 | | | | | | 0.217 | | | | | | 1.76 | | | | | | 5,769 | | | | | | 129,754 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands,
except ounce amounts) |
| |||||||||
Gold sales
|
| | | $ | 2,419 | | | | | $ | 178 | | |
Gold ounces sold
|
| | | | 1,600 | | | | | | 145 | | |
Average realized price (per ounce)
|
| | | $ | 1,512 | | | | | $ | 1,228 | | |
| | |
2019 vs. 2018
|
| | | | |||
The change in gold revenue was attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | |
Increase in ounces sold
|
| | | $ | 1,786 | | | |
|
|
Increase in average realized price
|
| | | | 41 | | | |
|
|
Effect of average realized price increase on ounces sold increase
|
| | | | 414 | | | |
|
|
Total change in gold revenue
|
| | | $ | 2,241 | | | |
|
|
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands, except
ounce amounts) |
| |||||||||
Silver sales
|
| | | $ | 288 | | | | | $ | 2 | | |
Silver ounces sold
|
| | | | 16,059 | | | | | | 124 | | |
Average realized price (per ounce)
|
| | | $ | 18 | | | | | $ | 16 | | |
| | |
2019 vs. 2018
|
| | | | |||
The change in silver revenue was attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | |
Increase in ounces sold
|
| | | $ | 257 | | | |
|
|
Increase in average realized price
|
| | | | — | | | |
|
|
Effect of average realized price increase on ounces sold increase
|
| | | | 29 | | | |
|
|
Total change in silver revenue
|
| | | $ | 286 | | | | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands)
|
| |||||||||
Production costs
|
| | | $ | 1,650 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 167 | | | | | | — | | |
Write-down of production inventories
|
| | | | 14,347 | | | | | | — | | |
Total cost of sales
|
| | | $ | 16,164 | | | | | $ | — | | |
|
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands,
except ounce amounts) |
| |||||||||
Gold sales
|
| | | $ | 178 | | | | | $ | 3,558 | | |
Gold ounces sold
|
| | | | 145 | | | | | | 2,875 | | |
Average realized price (per ounce)
|
| | | $ | 1,228 | | | | | $ | 1,238 | | |
| | |
2018 vs. 2017
|
| | | | |||
The change in gold sales was attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | |
Decrease in ounces sold
|
| | | $ | (3,379) | | | |
|
|
Decrease in average realized price
|
| | | | (29) | | | | | |
Effect of average realized price decrease on ounces sold decrease
|
| | | | 28 | | | | | |
Total change in gold sales
|
| | | $ | (3,380) | | | | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands,
except ounce amounts) |
| |||||||||
Silver sales
|
| | | $ | 2 | | | | | $ | 169 | | |
Silver ounces sold
|
| | | | 124 | | | | | | 10,967 | | |
Average realized price (per ounce)
|
| | | $ | 16 | | | | | $ | 15 | | |
| | |
2018 vs. 2017
|
| | | | |||
The change in silver sales was attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | |
Decrease in ounces sold
|
| | | $ | (167) | | | |
|
|
Increase in average realized price
|
| | | | 8 | | | | | |
Effect of average realized price increase on ounces sold decrease
|
| | | | (8) | | | | | |
Total change in silver sales
|
| | | $ | (167) | | | | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Cash
|
| | | $ | 4,963 | | | | | $ | 9,138 | | |
Metal inventories(1)
|
| | | | 2,014 | | | | | | 478 | | |
Ore on leach pads(2)
|
| | | | 12,593 | | | | | | — | | |
Total liquidity sources
|
| | | $ | 19,570 | | | | | $ | 9,616 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands)
|
| |||||||||
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (77,479) | | | | | $ | (52,243) | | |
Net non-cash adjustments
|
| | | | 55,801 | | | | | | 29,927 | | |
Net change in operating assets and liabilities
|
| | | | (22,417) | | | | | | 1,415 | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (44,095) | | | | | | (20,901) | | |
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
| | | | (10,809) | | | | | | (72) | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | | 48,844 | | | | | | 19,771 | | |
Net increase (decrease) in cash
|
| | | | (6,060) | | | | | | (1,202) | | |
Cash, beginning of period
|
| | | | 52,861 | | | | | | 53,337 | | |
Cash, end of period
|
| | | $ | 46,801 | | | | | $ | 52,135 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands)
|
| |||||||||
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (55,803) | | | | | $ | (74,148) | | |
Net non-cash adjustments
|
| | | | 26,059 | | | | | | 44,725 | | |
Net change in operating assets and liabilities
|
| | | | 2,819 | | | | | | 742 | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (26,925) | | | | | | (28,681) | | |
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
| | | | (1,146) | | | | | | 246 | | |
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
| | | | 27,595 | | | | | | 38,731 | | |
Net increase (decrease) in cash
|
| | | | (476) | | | | | | 10,296 | | |
Cash, beginning of period
|
| | | | 53,337 | | | | | | 43,041 | | |
Cash, end of period
|
| | | $ | 52,861 | | | | | $ | 53,337 | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Payments Due by Period
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Total
|
| |
Less than
1 Year |
| |
1 – 3Years
|
| |
3 – 5Years
|
| |
More than
5 Years |
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
(dollars in thousands)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest related to debt(1)
|
| | | $ | 13,349 | | | | | $ | 9,438 | | | | | $ | 3,911 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Remediation and reclamation expenditures(2)
|
| | | | 60,325 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 60,325 | | |
Financing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Repayments of debt principal(3)
|
| | | | 429,750 | | | | | | 131,606 | | | | | | 298,144 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Repayment of pay-in-kind interest
|
| | | | 76,776 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 76,776 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
| | | | $ | 580,200 | | | | | $ | 141,044 | | | | | $ | 378,831 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 60,325 | | |
Name
|
| |
Age
|
| |
Position
|
|
Randy Buffington | | |
60
|
| | Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer | |
John Ellis | | |
84
|
| | Director | |
Michael Harrison | | |
48
|
| | Director | |
David Kirsch | | |
40
|
| | Director | |
Jacob Mercer | | |
45
|
| | Director | |
Jonathan Segal | | |
38
|
| | Director | |
Stephen M. Jones | | |
61
|
| | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary | |
Name and Principal Position
|
| |
Year
|
| |
Salary ($)
|
| |
Bonus ($)
|
| |
Stock
Awards(1) ($) |
| |
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation(2) ($) |
| |
All Other
Compensation(3) ($) |
| |
Total ($)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Randy E. Buffington
|
| | | | 2019 | | | | | $ | 525,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,575,000 | | | | | $ | n/a(4) | | | | | $ | 22,438 | | | | | $ | 2,122,438 | | |
President and CEO
|
| | | | 2018 | | | | | $ | 525,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 150,000 | | | | | $ | 21,344 | | | | | $ | 696,344 | | |
| | | | | 2017 | | | | | $ | 525,000 | | | | | $ | 75,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 21,344 | | | | | $ | 621,344 | | |
Stephen M. Jones
|
| | | | 2019 | | | | | $ | 425,000 | | | | | $ | | | | | $ | 1,062,500 | | | | | $ | n/a(4) | | | | | $ | 23,628 | | | | | $ | 1,511,128 | | | |
Executive Vice President,
|
| | | | 2018 | | | | | $ | 425,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 100,000 | | | | | $ | 43,666 | | | | | $ | 568,666 | | |
CFO and Secretary
|
| | | | 2017 | | | | | $ | 425,000 | | | | | $ | 50,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 21,344 | | | | | $ | 496,344 | | |
Name
|
| |
Year
|
| |
401K Plan
Matching Contributions ($) |
| |
Life Insurance
Premiums ($) |
| |
Moving
Expenses ($) |
| |
Total ($)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Randy E. Buffington
|
| | | | 2019 | | | | | $ | 16,800 | | | | | $ | 5,638 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 22,438 | | |
| | | | | 2018 | | | | | $ | 16,500 | | | | | $ | 4,844 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 21,344 | | |
| | | | | 2017 | | | | | $ | 16,500 | | | | | $ | 4,844 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 21,344 | | |
Stephen M. Jones
|
| | | | 2019 | | | | | $ | 16,800 | | | | | $ | 6,828 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 23,628 | | |
| | | | | 2018 | | | | | $ | 16,500 | | | | | $ | 4,844 | | | | | | 22,322 | | | | | $ | 43,666 | | |
| | | | | 2017 | | | | | $ | 16,500 | | | | | $ | 4,844 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 21,244 | | |
Name
|
| |
Grant
Date |
| |
Stock Awards
|
| |||||||||
|
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units, or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) |
| |
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units, or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($) |
| |||||||||||
Randy E. Buffington
|
| |
February 20, 2019
|
| | | | —(1) | | | | | $ | 1,575,000 | | |
Stephen M. Jones
|
| |
February 20, 2019
|
| | | | —(1) | | | | | $ | 1,062,500 | | |
Name
|
| |
Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash ($) |
| |
Phantom Stock
Awards ($) |
| |
Total ($)
|
| |||||||||
John Ellis
|
| | | $ | 50,000 | | | | | $ | 75,000 | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | |
Michael Harrison
|
| | | $ | 50,000 | | | | | $ | 75,000 | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | |
David Kirsch
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | |
Jacob Mercer
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | |
Jonathan Segal
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | | | | $ | 125,000 | | |
Prepayment Date
|
| |
Percentage of Principal
Amount Outstanding |
| |||
Prior to 2nd anniversary of initial advance date
|
| | | | 5.0% | | |
After 2nd anniversary but prior to 4th anniversary of initial advance date
|
| | | | 3.0% | | |
| | |
First Lien Notes
|
| |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| |
Second Lien Convertible Notes
|
| |
1.25 Lien Notes
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transaction Date
|
| |
Funding
|
| |
Repayments
|
| |
Interest
Earned |
| |
Funding
|
| |
PIK
Interest |
| |
Funding
|
| |
PIK
Interest |
| |
Funding
|
| |
PIK
Interest |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | |
(dollars in thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||
Aristeia | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 10,795 | | | | | $ | 306 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
2016
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,826 | | | | | | 166 | | | | | | 1,028 | | | | | | 1,924 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2017
|
| | | | 3,506 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 143 | | | | | | 4,423 | | | | | | 810 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,230 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2018
|
| | | | 809 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 300 | | | | | | 3,020 | | | | | | 1,513 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,583 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2019
|
| | | | 1,618 | | | | | | | | | | | | 410 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,026 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,993 | | | | | | 7,767 | | | | | | 562 | | |
2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,618 | | | | | | — | | |
February 12, 2020 Balance
|
| | | $ | 5,933 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 853 | | | | | $ | 10,269 | | | | | $ | 4,514 | | | | | $ | 11,823 | | | | | $ | 10,036 | | | | | $ | 9,385 | | | | | $ | 562 | | |
Highbridge | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2015
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 15,981 | | | | | $ | 453 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
2016
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,196 | | | | | | 246 | | | | | | 1,575 | | | | | | 2,857 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2017
|
| | | | 7,002 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 302 | | | | | | 6,567 | | | | | | 1,203 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,311 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2018
|
| | | | 4,751 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 854 | | | | | | 4,485 | | | | | | 2,246 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,836 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2019
|
| | | | 2,402 | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,036 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,008 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,444 | | | | | | 11,532 | | | | | | 835 | | |
2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,402 | | | | | | — | | |
February 12, 2020 Balance
|
| | | $ | 14,156 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 2,193 | | | | | $ | 15,248 | | | | | $ | 6,703 | | | | | $ | 17,557 | | | | | $ | 14,901 | | | | | $ | 13,934 | | | | | $ | 835 | | |
Mudrick | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2015
|
| | | $ | 25,492 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 289 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 39,257 | | | | | $ | 1,112 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
2016
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (251) | | | | | | 1,568 | | | | | | 10,447 | | | | | | 612 | | | | | | 4,467 | | | | | | 7,113 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2017
|
| | | | 11,177 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,155 | | | | | | 16,348 | | | | | | 2,995 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 8,242 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2018
|
| | | | 2,991 | | | | | | (3,550) | | | | | | 2,631 | | | | | | 11,165 | | | | | | 5,591 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9,549 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2019
|
| | | | 5,981 | | | | | | | | | | | | 3,106 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,488 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 11,064 | | | | | | 28,709 | | | | | | 2,078 | | |
2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,981 | | | | | | — | | |
February 12, 2020 Balance
|
| | | $ | 45,641 | | | | | $ | (3,801) | | | | | $ | 9,749 | | | | | $ | 37,960 | | | | | $ | 16,687 | | | | | $ | 43,724 | | | | | $ | 37,081 | | | | | $ | 34,690 | | | | | $ | 2,078 | | |
Whitebox | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2015
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 28,032 | | | | | $ | 794 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
2016
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,360 | | | | | | 431 | | | | | | 2,763 | | | | | | 5,012 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2017
|
| | | | 9,115 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 371 | | | | | | 11,518 | | | | | | 2,110 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,807 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2018
|
| | | | 2,107 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 780 | | | | | | 7,866 | | | | | | 3,939 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 6,728 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2019
|
| | | | 4,214 | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,067 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,276 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,795 | | | | | | 20,227 | | | | | | 1,464 | | |
2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,214 | | | | | | — | | |
February 12, 2020 Balance
|
| | | $ | 15,436 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 2,218 | | | | | $ | 26,744 | | | | | $ | 11,757 | | | | | $ | 30,795 | | | | | $ | 26,136 | | | | | $ | 24,441 | | | | | $ | 1,464 | | |
Wolverine | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2015
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,719 | | | | | $ | 162 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
2016
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,370 | | | | | | 80 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 933 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2017
|
| | | | 1,700 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 69 | | | | | | 2,144 | | | | | | 393 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,081 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2018
|
| | | | 392 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 145 | | | | | | 1,464 | | | | | | 733 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,253 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
2019
|
| | | | 785 | | | | | | | | | | | | 199 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 982 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,451 | | | | | | 3,766 | | | | | | 273 | | |
2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 785 | | | | | | — | | |
February 12, 2020 Balance
|
| | | $ | 2,877 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 413 | | | | | $ | 4,979 | | | | | $ | 2,189 | | | | | $ | 5,719 | | | | | $ | 4,880 | | | | | $ | 4,550 | | | | | $ | 273 | | |
| | |
Before the Business
Combination(1) |
| |
After the Business Combination
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
No redemption
|
| |
With max. redemption
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beneficial owners(2)
|
| |
Number of
Share |
| |
% owned
|
| |
Number of
Share |
| |
% owned
|
| |
Number of
Share |
| |
% owned
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Mudrick Capital Acquisition Holdings LLC(3)
|
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Jason Mudrick(3)
|
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Victor Danh(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
David Kirsch(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Glenn Springer(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Dennis Stogsdill(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Timothy Daileader(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Dr. Brian Kushner(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
All directors and executive officers of MUDS as a group (7 individuals)
|
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Polar Asset Management Partners Inc.(5)
|
| | | | [2,079,800] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
AQR Capital Management, LLC(6)
|
| | | | [1,150,000] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Glazer Capital, LLC(7)
|
| | | | [1,648,282] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Mudrick Capital Management L.P. and affiliated entities(3)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Whitebox Advisors and affiliated entities
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Highbridge Capital Management LLC and affiliated entities
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Aristeia Capital, LLC and affiliated entities
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Wolverine Asset Management, LLC and affiliated entities
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Randy Buffington
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Stephen M. Jones
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
[•]
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
All directors and executive officers of HYMC as a group ([•] individuals)
|
| | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | | | | | [•] | | |
Total Shares
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Q1
2019 |
| |
Q2
2019 |
| |
Q3
2019 |
| |
Q4
2019 |
| ||||||||||||
Public unit
|
| | High | | | | $ | 10.58 | | | | | $ | 10.65 | | | | | $ | 10.85 | | | | | $ | 10.85 | | |
| | | Low | | | | $ | 10.22 | | | | | $ | 10.45 | | | | | $ | 10.35 | | | | | $ | 10.63 | | |
MUDS Class A common stock
|
| | High | | | | $ | 10.27 | | | | | $ | 10.20 | | | | | $ | 10.29 | | | | | $ | 10.35 | | |
| | | Low | | | | $ | 9.80 | | | | | $ | 10.04 | | | | | $ | 10.17 | | | | | $ | 10.18 | | |
MUDS Public Warrant
|
| | High | | | | $ | 0.59 | | | | | $ | 0.56 | | | | | $ | 2.19 | | | | | $ | 0.65 | | |
| | | Low | | | | $ | 0.40 | | | | | $ | 0.40 | | | | | $ | 0.43 | | | | | $ | 0.45 | | |
| | |
Existing Charter
|
| |
Proposed Charter
|
|
Number of Authorized Shares
(Proposal No. 2) |
| |
The existing charter provides that the total number of authorized shares of all classes of capital stock is 111,000,000 shares, consisting of (a) 110,000,000 shares of common stock, including (i) 100,000,000 shares of Class A common stock and (ii) 10,000,000 shares of Class B common stock, and (b) 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock.
See Section 4.1 of the existing charter.
|
| |
The proposed charter increases the total number of authorized shares of all classes of capital stock to [•], consisting of (a) [•] shares of Class A common stock and (b) [•] shares of preferred stock. The post-business combination company will not have Class B common stock.
See Section 4.1 of the proposed charter.
|
|
Board Declassification
(Proposal No. 3) |
| |
The existing charter requires that the board of directors be divided into three classes, with only one class of directors being elected each year and members of each class (except for those directors appointed prior to MUDS’ first annual meeting of stockholders) serving a three-year term.
See Article V of the existing charter.
|
| |
The proposed charter provides for annual board elections for all directors. Directors elected will hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders.
See Article V of the proposed charter.
|
|
Corporate Opportunities
(Proposal No. 4) |
| | The existing charter provides that the “corporate opportunities” doctrine shall apply to any of the directors or officers, but only with respect to such opportunities that (i) the company is legally and contractually permitted to undertake and would otherwise be reasonable for the company to pursue and (ii) the director or | | | The proposed charter provides that certain transactions would not be considered “corporate opportunities” and that each Exempted Person (which shall include Mudrick Capital, Highbridge, Whitebox, Aristeia, Wolverine and their respective affiliates, directors and officers) is not subject to the doctrine of | |
|
Legal
|
| | | $ | [•] | | |
|
Consultants
|
| | | | [•] | | |
|
IT support
|
| | | | [•] | | |
|
Accounting fees
|
| | | | [•] | | |
|
Insurance
|
| | | | [•] | | |
|
Final payroll and related tax
|
| | | | [•] | | |
|
General operating
|
| | | | [•] | | |
| | | | | $ | [•] | | |
|
MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION — UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | F-2 | | | |
| | | | | F-3 | | | |
| | | | | F-4 | | | |
| | | | | F-5 | | | |
| | | | | F-6 | | | |
|
MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION — AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | F-19 | | | |
| | | | | F-20 | | | |
| | | | | F-21 | | | |
| | | | | F-22 | | | |
| | | | | F-23 | | | |
| | | | | F-24 | | | |
|
HYCROFT MINING CORPORATION — UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | F-37 | | | |
| | | | | F-38 | | | |
| | | | | F-39 | | | |
| | | | | F-40 | | | |
| | | | | F-41 | | | |
|
HYCROFT MINING CORPORATION — AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
| | | | | | |
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | F-63 | | | |
| | | | | F-64 | | | |
| | | | | F-65 | | | |
| | | | | F-66 | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| | | | | | | |||
ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash
|
| | | $ | 267,248 | | | | | $ | 535,946 | | |
Income taxes receivable
|
| | | | 54,850 | | | | | | — | | |
Prepaid expenses
|
| | | | 29,590 | | | | | | 52,295 | | |
Total Current Assets
|
| | | | 351,688 | | | | | | 588,241 | | |
Investments held in Trust Account
|
| | | | 214,741,546 | | | | | | 212,916,691 | | |
Total Assets
|
| | | $ | 215,093,234 | | | | | $ | 213,504,932 | | |
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
| | | $ | 37,381 | | | | | $ | 201,392 | | |
Income taxes payable
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 555,449 | | |
Total Current Liabilities
|
| | | | 37,381 | | | | | | 756,841 | | |
Deferred underwriting fees
|
| | | | 7,280,000 | | | | | | 7,280,000 | | |
Total Liabilities
|
| | | | 7,317,381 | | | | | | 8,036,841 | | |
Commitments and Contingencies | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption, $0.0001 par value; 20,076,817 and 19,848,325 shares as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively (at redemption value of $10.10 per share)
|
| | | | 202,775,852 | | | | | | 200,468,083 | | |
Stockholders’ Equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding as of September 30, 2019 and December 31,
2018 |
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Class A Common stock, $0.0001 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized;
723,183 and 951,675 shares issued and outstanding (excluding 20,076,817 and 19,848,325 shares subject to possible redemption) as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively |
| | | | 72 | | | | | | 95 | | |
Class B Common stock, $0.0001 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; 5,200,000 shares issued and outstanding as of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively
|
| | | | 520 | | | | | | 520 | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | | | 1,014,468 | | | | | | 3,322,214 | | |
Retained earnings
|
| | | | 3,984,941 | | | | | | 1,677,179 | | |
Total Stockholders’ Equity
|
| | | | 5,000,001 | | | | | | 5,000,008 | | |
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
| | | $ | 215,093,234 | | | | | $ | 213,504,932 | | |
|
| | |
Three Months Ended
September 30, |
| |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||||||||
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | $ | 150,834 | | | | | $ | 136,590 | | | | | $ | 453,369 | | | | | $ | 407,781 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (150,834) | | | | | | (136,590) | | | | | | (453,369) | | | | | | (407,781) | | |
Other income: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 1,252 | | | | | | 2,667 | | | | | | 5,677 | | | | | | 5,615 | | |
Interest earned on marketable securities held in Trust Account
|
| | | | 1,113,871 | | | | | | 913,360 | | | | | | 3,475,683 | | | | | | 1,804,362 | | |
Other income
|
| | | | 1,115,123 | | | | | | 916,027 | | | | | | 3,481,360 | | | | | | 1,809,977 | | |
Income before provision for income taxes
|
| | | | 964,289 | | | | | | 779,437 | | | | | | 3,027,991 | | | | | | 1,402,196 | | |
Provision for income taxes
|
| | | | (223,676) | | | | | | (181,865) | | | | | | (720,229) | | | | | | (348,595) | | |
Net income
|
| | | $ | 740,613 | | | | | $ | 597,572 | | | | | $ | 2,307,762 | | | | | $ | 1,053,601 | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class A
common stock |
| | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 20,800,000 | | |
Basic and diluted income per common share, Class A
|
| | | $ | 0.04 | | | | | $ | 0.03 | | | | | $ | 0.13 | | | | | $ | 0.06 | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class B
common stock |
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | |
Basic and diluted loss per common share, Class B
|
| | | $ | (0.02) | | | | | $ | (0.02) | | | | | $ | (0.07) | | | | | $ | (0.05) | | |
| | |
Class A
Common Stock |
| |
Class B
Common Stock |
| |
Additional
Paid in Capital |
| |
Retained
Earnings/ (Accumulated Deficit) |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance – January 1, 2018
|
| | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | | 5,750,000 | | | | | $ | 575 | | | | | $ | 24,425 | | | | | $ | (2,784) | | | | | $ | 22,216 | | |
Sale of 20,800,000 Units, net of underwriting discounts and offering costs
|
| | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 2,080 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 196,023,832 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 196,025,912 | | |
Sale of 7,740,000 Private Placement Warrants
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,740,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,740,000 | | |
Forfeiture of founder shares
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (550,000) | | | | | | (55) | | | | | | 55 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (19,681,326) | | | | | | (1,968) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (198,779,425) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (198,781,393) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (6,732) | | | | | | (6,732) | | |
Balance – March 31, 2018
|
| | | | 1,118,674 | | | | | | 112 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 520 | | | | | | 5,008,887 | | | | | | (9,516) | | | | | | 5,000,003 | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (45,818) | | | | | | (5) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (462,756) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (462,761) | | |
Net income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 462,761 | | | | | | 462,761 | | |
Balance – June 30, 2018
|
| | | | 1,072,856 | | | | | | 107 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 520 | | | | | | 4,546,131 | | | | | | 453,245 | | | | | | 5,000,003 | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (59,165) | | | | | | (6) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (597,561) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (597,567) | | |
Net income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 597,572 | | | | | | 597,572 | | |
Balance – September 30, 2018
|
| | | | 1,013,691 | | | | | $ | 101 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | $ | 520 | | | | | $ | 3,948,570 | | | | | $ | 1,050,817 | | | | | $ | 5,000,008 | | |
|
| | |
Class A
Common Stock |
| |
Class B
Common Stock |
| |
Additional
Paid in Capital |
| |
Retained
Earnings |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance – January 1, 2019
|
| | | | 951,675 | | | | | $ | 95 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | $ | 520 | | | | | $ | 3,322,214 | | | | | $ | 1,677,179 | | | | | $ | 5,000,008 | | |
Change in value of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (73,598) | | | | | | (7) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (743,332) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (743,339) | | |
Net income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 743,340 | | | | | | 743,340 | | |
Balance – March 31, 2019
|
| | | | 878,077 | | | | | | 88 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 520 | | | | | | 2,578,882 | | | | | | 2,420,519 | | | | | | 5,000,009 | | |
Change in value of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (81,566) | | | | | | (8) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (823,809) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (823,817) | | |
Net income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 823,809 | | | | | | 823,809 | | |
Balance – June 30, 2019
|
| | | | 796,511 | | | | | | 80 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 520 | | | | | | 1,755,073 | | | | | | 3,244,328 | | | | | | 5,000,001 | | |
Change in value of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | | (73,328) | | | | | | (8) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (740,605) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (740,613) | | |
Net income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 740,613 | | | | | | 740,613 | | |
Balance – September 30, 2019
|
| | | | 723,183 | | | | | $ | 72 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | $ | 520 | | | | | $ | 1,014,468 | | | | | $ | 3,984,941 | | | | | $ | 5,000,001 | | |
|
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
Cash Flows from Operating Activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income
|
| | | $ | 2,307,762 | | | | | $ | 1,053,601 | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash used in operating activities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest earned on marketable securities held in Trust Account
|
| | | | (3,475,683) | | | | | | (1,804,362) | | |
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Income taxes receivable
|
| | | | (54,850) | | | | | | — | | |
Prepaid expenses
|
| | | | 22,705 | | | | | | (82,710) | | |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
| | | | (164,011) | | | | | | 175,369 | | |
Income taxes payable
|
| | | | (555,449) | | | | | | 348,595 | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (1,919,526) | | | | | | (309,507) | | |
Cash Flows from Investing Activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash withdrawn from Trust Account
|
| | | | 1,650,828 | | | | | | — | | |
Investment of cash in Trust Account
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (210,080,000) | | |
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
| | | | 1,650,828 | | | | | | (210,080,000) | | |
Cash Flows from Financing Activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Proceeds from sale of Units, net of underwriting fees paid
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 203,840,000 | | |
Proceeds from sale of Private Placement Warrants
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 7,740,000 | | |
Repayment of promissory note – related party
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (242,331) | | |
Payment of offering costs
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (293,953) | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 211,043,716 | | |
Net Change in Cash
|
| | | | (268,698) | | | | | | 654,209 | | |
Cash – Beginning
|
| | | | 535,946 | | | | | | 24,945 | | |
Cash – Ending | | | | $ | 267,248 | | | | | $ | 679,154 | | |
Supplementary cash flow information: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash paid for income taxes
|
| | | $ | 1,330,528 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Non-Cash investing and financing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred underwriting fees charged to additional paid in capital
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 7,280,000 | | |
Payment of deferred offering costs and expenses by Sponsor
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 240,135 | | |
Initial classification of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 198,787,536 | | |
Change in value of common stock subject to possible redemption (at redemption value of $10.10 per share)
|
| | | $ | 2,307,769 | | | | | $ | 1,054,185 | | |
Description
|
| |
Level
|
| |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| |||||||||
Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Trust Account – U.S. Treasury Securities Money Market Fund
|
| | | | 1 | | | | | $ | 214,741,546 | | | | | $ | 212,916,691 | | |
| | |
December 31,
2018 |
| |
December 31,
2017 |
| ||||||
ASSETS | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash
|
| | | $ | 535,946 | | | | | $ | 24,945 | | |
Prepaid expenses
|
| | | | 52,295 | | | | | | — | | |
Total Current Assets
|
| | | | 588,241 | | | | | | 24,945 | | |
Deferred offering costs
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 166,500 | | |
Marketable securities held in Trust Account
|
| | | | 212,916,691 | | | | | | — | | |
Total Assets
|
| | | $ | 213,504,932 | | | | | $ | 191,445 | | |
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
| | | $ | 201,392 | | | | | $ | 533 | | |
Income taxes payable
|
| | | | 555,449 | | | | | | — | | |
Accrued offering costs
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 25,000 | | |
Promissory note – related party
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 143,696 | | |
Total Current Liabilities
|
| | | | 756,841 | | | | | | 169,229 | | |
Deferred underwriting fees
|
| | | | 7,280,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Total Liabilities
|
| | | | 8,036,841 | | | | | | 169,229 | | |
Commitments and Contingencies | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock subject to possible redemption, $0.0001 par value; 19,848,325
and -0- shares as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively (at redemption value of $10.10 per share) |
| | | | 200,468,083 | | | | | | — | | |
Stockholders’ Equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value; 1,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2018 and 2017
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Class A Common stock, $0.0001 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized;
951,675 and -0- shares issued and outstanding (excluding 19,848,325 and -0- shares subject to possible redemption) as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively |
| | | | 95 | | | | | | — | | |
Class B Common stock, $0.0001 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized;
5,200,000 and 5,750,000 shares issued and outstanding as of December 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively |
| | | | 520 | | | | | | 575 | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | | | 3,322,214 | | | | | | 24,425 | | |
Retained earnings (Accumulated deficit)
|
| | | | 1,677,179 | | | | | | (2,784) | | |
Total Stockholders’ Equity
|
| | | | 5,000,008 | | | | | | 22,216 | | |
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
|
| | | $ | 213,504,932 | | | | | $ | 191,445 | | |
|
| | |
Year Ended
December 31, 2018 |
| |
For the
Period from August 28, 2017 (inception) Through December 31, 2017 |
| ||||||
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | $ | 609,581 | | | | | $ | 2,784 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (609,581) | | | | | | (2,784) | | |
Other income: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 8,302 | | | | | | — | | |
Interest earned on marketable securities held in Trust Account
|
| | | | 2,836,691 | | | | | | — | | |
Other income
|
| | | | 2,844,993 | | | | | | — | | |
Income (loss) before provision for income taxes
|
| | | | 2,235,412 | | | | | | (2,784) | | |
Provision for income taxes
|
| | | | (555,449) | | | | | | — | | |
Net income (loss)
|
| | | $ | 1,679,963 | | | | | $ | (2,784) | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class A common stock
|
| | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Basic and diluted income per common share, Class A
|
| | |
$
|
0.10
|
| | | | $ | — | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding of Class B common stock(1)
|
| | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | |
Basic and diluted loss per common share, Class B
|
| | | $ | (0.08) | | | | | $ | (0.00) | | |
| | |
Common Stock
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Class A
|
| |
Class B
|
| |
Additional
Paid-in Capital |
| |
Accumulated
Deficit |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance – August 28, 2017 (inception)
|
| | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Issuance of Class B common stock to Sponsor
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 5,750,000 | | | | | | 575 | | | | | | 24,425 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 25,000 | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | (2,784) | | | | | | (2,784) | | |
Balance – December 31, 2017
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,750,000 | | | | | | 575 | | | | | | 24,425 | | | | | | (2,784) | | | | | | 22,216 | | |
Sale of 20,800,000 Units, net of underwriting discounts and offering expenses
|
| | | | 20,800,000 | | | | | | 2,080 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 196,023,832 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 196,025,912 | | |
Sale of 7,740,000 Private Placement Warrants
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 7,740,000 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 7,740,000 | | |
Forfeiture of founder shares
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (550,000) | | | | | | (55) | | | | | | 55 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| |
Common stock subject to redemption
|
| | | | (19,848,325) | | | | | | (1,985) | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | (200,466,098) | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | (200,468,083) | | |
Net income
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 1,679,963 | | | | | | 1,679,963 | | |
Balance – December 31, 2018
|
| | | | 951,675 | | | | | $ | 95 | | | | | | 5,200,000 | | | | | $ | 520 | | | | | $ | 3,322,214 | | | | | $ | 1,677,179 | | | | | $ | 5,000,008 | | |
|
| | |
Year
Ended December 31, 2018 |
| |
For the Period
from August 28, 2017 (inception) Through December 31, 2017 |
| ||||||
Cash Flows from Operating Activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss)
|
| | | $ | 1,679,963 | | | | | $ | (2,784) | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash used in operating activities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest earned on marketable securities held in Trust Account
|
| | | | (2,836,691) | | | | | | — | | |
Increase in promissory note – related party
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 2,196 | | |
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Prepaid expenses
|
| | | | (52,295) | | | | | | — | | |
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
|
| | | | 200,859 | | | | | | 533 | | |
Income taxes payable
|
| | | | 555,449 | | | | | | — | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (452,715) | | | | | | (55) | | |
Cash Flows from Investing Activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investment of cash in Trust Account
|
| | | | (210,080,000) | | | | | | — | | |
Net cash used in investing activities
|
| | |
|
(210,080,000)
|
| | | | | — | | |
Cash Flows from Financing Activities: | | | | ||||||||||
Proceeds from issuance of Class B common stock to Sponsor
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 25,000 | | |
Proceeds from sale of Units, net of underwriting fees paid
|
| | | | 203,840,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Proceeds from sale of Private Placement Warrants
|
| | | | 7,740,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Repayment of promissory note – related party
|
| | | | (242,331) | | | | | | — | | |
Payment of offering costs
|
| | | | (293,953) | | | | | | — | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | | 211,043,716 | | | | | | 25,000 | | |
Net Change in Cash
|
| | | | 511,001 | | | | | | 24,945 | | |
Cash – Beginning of period
|
| | | | 24,945 | | | | | | — | | |
Cash – End of period
|
| | | $ | 535,946 | | | | | $ | 24,945 | | |
Non-Cash investing and financing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred underwriting fees charged to additional paid in capital
|
| | | $ | 7,280,000 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Initial classification of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | $ | 198,787,536 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Deferred offering costs included in accrued offering costs
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 25,000 | | |
Payment of deferred offering costs and expenses by Sponsor
|
| | | $ | 240,135 | | | | | $ | 141,500 | | |
Change in value of common stock subject to possible redemption
|
| | | $ | 1,680,547 | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
December 31,
2018 |
| |||
Deferred tax asset | | | | | | | |
Organizational costs/Startup expenses
|
| | | $ | 86,012 | | |
Total deferred tax assets
|
| | | | 86,012 | | |
Valuation allowance
|
| | | | (86,012) | | |
Deferred tax asset, net of allowance
|
| | | $ | — | | |
| | |
Year Ended
December 31, 2018 |
| |||
Federal | | | | | | | |
Current
|
| | | $ | 555,449 | | |
Deferred
|
| | | | (86,012) | | |
State | | | | | | | |
Current
|
| | | | — | | |
Deferred
|
| | | | — | | |
Change in valuation allowance
|
| | | | 86,012 | | |
Income tax provision
|
| | | $ | 555,449 | | |
| | |
Year Ended
December 31, 2018 |
| |||
Statutory federal income tax rate
|
| | | | 21.0% | | |
State taxes, net of federal tax benefit
|
| | | | 0.0% | | |
Change in valuation allowance
|
| | | | 3.8% | | |
Income tax provision
|
| | | | 24.8% | | |
Description
|
| |
Level
|
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| |
December 31,
2017 |
| |||||||||
Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Marketable securities held in Trust Account – U.S. Treasury Securities Money Market Fund
|
| | | | 1 | | | | | $ | 212,916,691 | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| | | | | | | |||
Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash
|
| | | $ | 4,963 | | | | | $ | 9,138 | | |
Restricted cash – Note 5
|
| | | | 2,518 | | | | | | 5,030 | | |
Inventories – Note 3
|
| | | | 4,668 | | | | | | 2,060 | | |
Ore on leach pads – Note 3
|
| | | | 12,593 | | | | | | — | | |
Prepaids and other – Note 4
|
| | | | 2,166 | | | | | | 2,261 | | |
Current assets
|
| | | | 26,908 | | | | | | 18,489 | | |
Restricted cash – Note 5
|
| | | | 39,320 | | | | | | 38,693 | | |
Plant and equipment, net – Note 6
|
| | | | 51,397 | | | | | | 41,404 | | |
Other assets, non-current – Note 4
|
| | | | 4,152 | | | | | | 1,158 | | |
Total assets
|
| | | $ | 121,777 | | | | | $ | 99,744 | | |
Liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable
|
| | | $ | 11,123 | | | | | $ | 3,824 | | |
Interest payable
|
| | | | 599 | | | | | | 1,049 | | |
Other liabilities, current – Note 7
|
| | | | 3,305 | | | | | | 1,790 | | |
Debt, current – Notes 8 and 18
|
| | | | 318,581 | | | | | | 131,386 | | |
Current liabilities
|
| | | | 333,608 | | | | | | 138,049 | | |
Other liabilities, non-current – Note 7
|
| | | | 18 | | | | | | 18 | | |
Debt, non-current – Notes 8 and 18
|
| | | | 199,837 | | | | | | 296,201 | | |
Asset retirement obligation, non-current – Note 9
|
| | | | 6,149 | | | | | | 5,832 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | | | 539,612 | | | | | | 440,100 | | |
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity: – Note 10 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 400,000,000 shares authorized for both periods; 3,095,651 and 2,758,690 issued; and 2,897,569 and 2,598,036 outstanding at September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively
|
| | | | 3 | | | | | | 3 | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | | | 5,184 | | | | | | 5,184 | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | | | (423,022) | | | | | | (345,543) | | |
Total stockholders’ (deficit) equity
|
| | | | (417,835) | | | | | | (340,356) | | |
Total liabilities and stockholders’ (deficit) equity
|
| | | $ | 121,777 | | | | | $ | 99,744 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| |||||||||
Revenues – Note 11
|
| | | $ | 2,707 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Cost of sales: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Production costs
|
| | | | 1,650 | | | | | | — | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 167 | | | | | | — | | |
Write-down of production inventories
|
| | | | 14,347 | | | | | | — | | |
Total cost of sales
|
| | | | 16,164 | | | | | | — | | |
Operating expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Project and development
|
| | | | 7,408 | | | | | | 4,086 | | |
Care and maintenance
|
| | | | 3,529 | | | | | | 6,234 | | |
Pre-production depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 1,066 | | | | | | 2,606 | | |
Accretion – Note 9
|
| | | | 317 | | | | | | 953 | | |
General and administrative
|
| | | | 4,660 | | | | | | 4,671 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (30,437) | | | | | | (18,550) | | |
Other income (expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 620 | | | | | | 348 | | |
Interest expense, net of capitalized interest of $451 and $0, respectively – Note s 8 and 18
|
| | | | (46,774) | | | | | | (37,099) | | |
Gain on retirement of debt – Note 8
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 3,321 | | |
Loss before reorganization items, net and income taxes
|
| | | | (76,591) | | | | | | (51,980) | | |
Reorganization items, net
|
| | | | (888) | | | | | | (263) | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | | | (77,479) | | | | | | (52,243) | | |
Income tax – Note 13
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (77,479) | | | | | $ | (52,243) | | |
Loss per share: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic
|
| | | $ | (28.71) | | | | | $ | (19.63) | | |
Diluted
|
| | | $ | (28.71) | | | | | $ | (19.63) | | |
Weighted average shares outstanding: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic
|
| | | | 2,698,851 | | | | | | 2,661,087 | | |
Diluted(1)
|
| | | | 2,698,851 | | | | | | 2,661,087 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| |||||||||
Cash flows from operating activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (77,479) | | | | | $ | (52,243) | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss for the period to net cash used in operating activities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 1,233 | | | | | | 2,606 | | |
Accretion
|
| | | | 317 | | | | | | 953 | | |
Stock-based compensation – Note 12
|
| | | | 697 | | | | | | — | | |
Non-cash portion of interest expense
|
| | | | 39,207 | | | | | | 29,689 | | |
Gain on repurchase of debt
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (3,321) | | |
Write-down of production inventories
|
| | | | 14,347 | | | | | | — | | |
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Materials and supplies inventories
|
| | | | (1,072) | | | | | | (43) | | |
Production-related inventories
|
| | | | (25,852) | | | | | | (118) | | |
Prepaids and other
|
| | | | 95 | | | | | | 980 | | |
Other assets, non-current
|
| | | | (120) | | | | | | — | | |
Accounts payable
|
| | | | 4,270 | | | | | | (709) | | |
Interest payable
|
| | | | (450) | | | | | | 607 | | |
Other liabilities
|
| | | | 712 | | | | | | 698 | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (44,095) | | | | | | (20,901) | | |
Cash flows used in investing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Additions to plant and equipment
|
| | | | (10,809) | | | | | | (72) | | |
Net cash used in investing activities
|
| | | | (10,809) | | | | | | (72) | | |
Cash flows from financing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Proceeds from debt issuances, net
|
| | | | 51,919 | | | | | | 19,924 | | |
Refinancing of First Lien
|
| | | | (731) | | | | | | — | | |
Refinancing issuance costs
|
| | | | (2,344) | | | | | | — | | |
Retirement of debt
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (106) | | |
Repayments of principal on capital lease
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (47) | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | | 48,844 | | | | | | 19,771 | | |
Net decrease in cash
|
| | | | (6,060) | | | | | | (1,202) | | |
Cash, beginning of period
|
| | | | 52,861 | | | | | | 53,337 | | |
Cash, end of period
|
| | | $ | 46,801 | | | | | $ | 52,135 | | |
Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
| | | $ | 4,963 | | | | | $ | 8,675 | | |
Restricted cash – current
|
| | | | 2,518 | | | | | | 4,884 | | |
Restricted cash – non-current
|
| | | | 39,320 | | | | | | 38,576 | | |
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
|
| | | $ | 46,801 | | | | | $ | 52,135 | | |
|
| | |
Common Stock
|
| |
Treasury Stock
|
| |
Additional
Paid-in Capital |
| |
Accumulated
Deficit |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1,
2018 |
| | | | 2,668,690 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | 65,572 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,184 | | | | | $ | (289,740) | | | | | $ | (284,553) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (52,243) | | | | | | (52,243) | | |
Shares issued
|
| | | | 90,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Shares repurchased
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 95,082 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Balance at September 30, 2018
|
| | | | 2,758,690 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | 160,654 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,184 | | | | | $ | (341,983) | | | | | $ | (336,796) | | |
|
| | |
Common Stock
|
| |
Treasury Stock
|
| |
Additional
Paid-in Capital |
| |
Accumulated
Deficit |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
(unaudited)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1,
2019 |
| | | | 2,758,690 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | 160,654 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,184 | | | | | $ | (345,543) | | | | | $ | (340,356) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (77,479) | | | | | | (77,479) | | |
Shares issued(1)
|
| | | | 336,961 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Shares repurchased
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 37,428 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Balance at September 30, 2019
|
| | | | 3,095,651 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | 198,082 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,184 | | | | | $ | (423,022) | | | | | $ | (417,835) | | |
| | |
September 30, 2019
|
| |
December 31, 2018
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| ||||||||||||
Materials and supplies
|
| | | $ | 2,654 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 1,582 | | | | | | — | | |
Merrill-Crowe in process
|
| | | | 497 | | | | | | 417 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Carbon column in-process
|
| | | | 478 | | | | | | 474 | | | | | | 478 | | | | | | 482 | | |
Doré finished goods
|
| | | | 1,039 | | | | | | 882 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 4,668 | | | | | | 1,773 | | | | | $ | 2,060 | | | | | | 482 | | |
| | |
September 30, 2019
|
| |
December 31, 2018
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| ||||||||||||
Ore on leach pads
|
| | | $ | 12,593 | | | | | | 10,316 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | | — | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Prepaids and other | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Prepaids
|
| | | $ | 1,627 | | | | | $ | 1,722 | | |
Deposits
|
| | | | 539 | | | | | | 539 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 2,166 | | | | | $ | 2,261 | | |
Other assets, non-current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred future financing costs
|
| | | $ | 4,032 | | | | | $ | 1,158 | | |
Royalty – advance payment
|
| | | | 120 | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 4,152 | | | | | $ | 1,158 | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
First Lien agreement restricted cash – Note 8
|
| | | $ | 2,518 | | | | | $ | 5,030 | | |
Asset retirement obligation surety bonds (collateralized obligation)
|
| | | | 39,320 | | | | | | 38,693 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 41,838 | | | | | $ | 43,723 | | |
| | |
Depreciation Life
of Method |
| |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Mine equipment
|
| |
5 – 7 years
|
| | | $ | 3,942 | | | | | $ | 3,905 | | |
Process equipment
|
| |
5 – 13 years
|
| | | | 8,291 | | | | | | 6,759 | | |
Leach pads
|
| |
Units-of-production
|
| | | | 11,190 | | | | | | 11,190 | | |
Restart leach pads
|
| |
18 months
|
| | | | 6,261 | | | | | | — | | |
Buildings and leasehold improvements
|
| |
10 years
|
| | | | 10,507 | | | | | | 10,507 | | |
Vehicles
|
| |
3 – 5 years
|
| | | | 136 | | | | | | 41 | | |
Furniture and office equipment
|
| |
7 years
|
| | | | 37 | | | | | | 22 | | |
Construction in progress and other
|
| | | | | | | 26,554 | | | | | | 20,750 | | |
| | | | | | | $ | 66,918 | | | | | $ | 53,174 | | |
Less: accumulated depreciation and
amortization |
| | | | | | | (15,521) | | | | | | (11,770) | | |
Total
|
| | | | | | $ | 51,397 | | | | | $ | 41,404 | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Other liabilities, current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accrued compensation for phantom shares — Note 14
|
| | | $ | 1,590 | | | | | $ | 884 | | |
Other accrued compensation
|
| | | | 912 | | | | | | 892 | | |
Restricted stock units – Note 12
|
| | | | 803 | | | | | | — | | |
Other
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 14 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 3,305 | | | | | $ | 1,790 | | |
Other liabilities, non-current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Warrant liability – Notes 10 and 14
|
| | | $ | 18 | | | | | $ | 18 | | |
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Debt, current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 125,468 | | | | | $ | 125,468 | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 132,096 | | | | | | — | | |
1.25 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 54,744 | | | | | | — | | |
Other note payable
|
| | | | 6,558 | | | | | | 5,989 | | |
Less, debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (285) | | | | | | (71) | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 318,581 | | | | | $ | 131,386 | | |
Debt, non-current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Convertible Notes
|
| | | $ | 200,878 | | | | | $ | 179,874 | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 118,270 | | |
Less, debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (1,041) | | | | | | (1,943) | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 199,837 | | | | | $ | 296,201 | | |
Transaction Period
|
| |
Note Issuances
|
| |
Interest In-Kind
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||
Year ended December 31, 2016
|
| | | $ | 26,200 | | | | | $ | 1,535 | | | | | $ | 27,735 | | |
Year ended December 31, 2017
|
| | | | 41,000 | | | | | | 7,512 | | | | | | 48,512 | | |
Year ended December 31, 2018
|
| | | | 28,000 | | | | | | 14,023 | | | | | | 42,023 | | |
Nine months ended September 30, 2019
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 13,826 | | | | | | 13,826 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 95,200 | | | | | $ | 36,896 | | | | | $ | 132,096 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
Second Lien Convertible Notes
|
| | | $ | 21,005 | | | | | $ | 18,422 | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 13,809 | | | | | | 9,889 | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | | 7,571 | | | | | | 7,074 | | |
1.25 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 2,757 | | | | | | — | | |
Amortization of debt issuance costs
|
| | | | 1,513 | | | | | | 1,377 | | |
Promissory Note
|
| | | | 570 | | | | | | 337 | | |
Capitalized interest
|
| | | | (451) | | | | | | — | | |
Total interest expense
|
| | | $ | 46,774 | | | | | $ | 37,099 | | |
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
Balance at January 1,
|
| | | $ | 5,832 | | | | | $ | 21,548 | | |
Accretion expense
|
| | | | 317 | | | | | | 953 | | |
Balance at September 30,
|
| | | $ | 6,149 | | | | | $ | 22,501 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended September 30,
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Amount
|
| |
Ounces
Sold |
| |
Amount
|
| |
Ounces
Sold |
| ||||||||||||
Gold sales
|
| | | $ | 2,419 | | | | | | 1,600 | | | | | $ | 178 | | | | | | 145 | | |
Silver sales
|
| | | | 288 | | | | | | 16,059 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | 124 | | |
Total gold and silver sales
|
| | | $ | 2,707 | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 180 | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Hierarchy
Level |
| |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| |||||||||
Liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accrued compensation for phantom shares
|
| | | | 3 | | | | | $ | 1,590 | | | | | $ | 884 | | |
Derivative instruments:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Warrant liability — Note 9
|
| | | | 2 | | | | | $ | 18 | | | | | $ | 18 | | |
| | |
September 30, 2019
|
| |
December 31, 2018
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Carrying
Amount |
| |
Fair Value
|
| |
Carrying
Amount |
| |
Fair Value
|
| ||||||||||||
Total current and non-current debt
|
| | | $ | 518,418 | | | | | $ | 439,721 | | | | | $ | 427,587 | | | | | $ | 350,000 | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
Cash paid for interest
|
| | | $ | 8,021 | | | | | $ | 6,830 | | |
Significant non-cash financing and investing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Increase in Second Lien convertible notes from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 21,004 | | | | | | 18,368 | | |
Increase in 1.5 Lien Notes from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 13,827 | | | | | | 9,917 | | |
Increase in 1.25 Lien Notes from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 2,744 | | | | | | — | | |
Increase in the Promissory Note from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 570 | | | | | | — | | |
Accrual of deferred future financing costs
|
| | | | 530 | | | | | | — | | |
Plant and equipment additions
|
| | | | 2,485 | | | | | | — | | |
| | |
Nine Months Ended
September 30, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2019
|
| |
2018
|
| ||||||
Aristeia
|
| | | $ | 4,288 | | | | | $ | 3,181 | | |
Highbridge
|
| | | | 6,689 | | | | | | 5,025 | | |
Mudrick
|
| | | | 17,050 | | | | | | 12,883 | | |
Whitebox
|
| | | | 11,166 | | | | | | 8,285 | | |
Wolverine
|
| | | | 2,079 | | | | | | 1,543 | | |
Total related party interest expense
|
| | | $ | 41,272 | | | | | $ | 30,917 | | |
|
| | |
September 30,
2019 |
| |
December 31,
2018 |
| ||||||
Aristeia
|
| | | $ | 46,617 | | | | | $ | 35,939 | | |
Highbridge
|
| | | | 74,564 | | | | | | 58,709 | | |
Mudrick
|
| | | | 192,230 | | | | | | 152,757 | | |
Whitebox
|
| | | | 121,394 | | | | | | 93,583 | | |
Wolverine
|
| | | | 22,604 | | | | | | 23,998 | | |
Total related party debt
|
| | | $ | 457,409 | | | | | $ | 364,986 | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash
|
| | | $ | 9,138 | | | | | $ | 9,688 | | |
Restricted cash – Note 6
|
| | | | 5,030 | | | | | | — | | |
Inventories – Note 4
|
| | | | 2,060 | | | | | | 1,884 | | |
Prepaids and other – Note 5
|
| | | | 2,261 | | | | | | 3,208 | | |
Current assets
|
| | | | 18,489 | | | | | | 14,780 | | |
Restricted cash – Note 6
|
| | | | 38,693 | | | | | | 43,649 | | |
Plant and equipment, net – Note 7
|
| | | | 41,404 | | | | | | 43,670 | | |
Mineral properties, net – Note 8
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 1,093 | | |
Income tax receivable – Note 9
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 145 | | |
Other assets, non-current – Note 5
|
| | | | 1,158 | | | | | | — | | |
Total assets
|
| | | $ | 99,744 | | | | | $ | 103,337 | | |
Liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable
|
| | | $ | 3,824 | | | | | $ | 2,551 | | |
Interest payable
|
| | | | 1,049 | | | | | | 529 | | |
Other liabilities, current – Note 10
|
| | | | 1,790 | | | | | | 953 | | |
Debt, current – Notes 11 and 20
|
| | | | 131,386 | | | | | | 5,911 | | |
Current liabilities
|
| | | | 138,049 | | | | | | 9,944 | | |
Other liabilities, non-current – Note 10
|
| | | | 18 | | | | | | 18 | | |
Debt, non-current – Notes 11 and 20
|
| | | | 296,201 | | | | | | 356,380 | | |
Asset retirement obligation, non-current – Note 12
|
| | | | 5,832 | | | | | | 21,548 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | | | 440,100 | | | | | | 387,890 | | |
Commitments and contingencies – Note 19 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity: – Note 13 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 400,000,000 shares authorized for both periods; 2,758,689 and 2,668,689 issued; and 2,598,035 and 2,603,117 outstanding at December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively
|
| | | | 3 | | | | | | 3 | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | | | 5,184 | | | | | | 5,184 | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | | | (345,543) | | | | | | (289,740) | | |
Total stockholders’ (deficit)
|
| | | | (340,356) | | | | | | (284,553) | | |
Total liabilities and stockholders’ (deficit)
|
| | | $ | 99,744 | | | | | $ | 103,337 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Revenue – Note 14
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Operating costs and expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 3,472 | | | | | | 4,387 | | |
Project and development
|
| | | | 4,916 | | | | | | 4,259 | | |
Care and maintenance, net
|
| | | | 8,961 | | | | | | 10,420 | | |
Accretion – Note 12
|
| | | | 1,271 | | | | | | 1,164 | | |
Write-down of supplies inventories – Note 4
|
| | | | 144 | | | | | | 166 | | |
Write-down of mineral property – Note 8
|
| | | | 1,032 | | | | | | — | | |
Gain on disposal of assets, net
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (99) | | |
General and administrative
|
| | | | 5,342 | | | | | | 4,805 | | |
Reduction in asset retirement obligation – Note 12
|
| | | | (16,987) | | | | | | — | | |
Impairment of long-lived assets – Note 7
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 7,832 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | (8,151) | | | | | | (32,934) | | |
Other income (expense): | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest expense – Notes 11 and 20
|
| | | | (50,893) | | | | | | (41,161) | | |
Interest income
|
| | | | 464 | | | | | | 157 | | |
Gain on retirement of debt – Note 11
|
| | | | 3,321 | | | | | | — | | |
Other, net
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 9 | | |
Loss before reorganization items, net and income taxes
|
| | | | (55,259) | | | | | | (73,929) | | |
Reorganization items, net – Note 3
|
| | | | (399) | | | | | | (364) | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | | | (55,658) | | | | | | (74,293) | | |
Income tax (expense) benefit – Note 9
|
| | | | (145) | | | | | | 145 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (55,803) | | | | | $ | (74,148) | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Cash flows from operating activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net loss
|
| | | $ | (55,803) | | | | | $ | (74,148) | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss for the period to net cash used in operating activities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 3,472 | | | | | | 4,387 | | |
Accretion – Note 12
|
| | | | 1,271 | | | | | | 1,164 | | |
Write-down of supplies inventories – Note 4
|
| | | | 144 | | | | | | 166 | | |
Write-down of mineral property – Note 8
|
| | | | 1,032 | | | | | | — | | |
Reduction in asset retirement obligation – Note 12
|
| | | | (16,987) | | | | | | — | | |
Impairment of long-lived assets – Note 7
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 7,832 | | |
Decrease in value of phantom shares – Note 15
|
| | | | (391) | | | | | | — | | |
Non-cash portion of interest expense
|
| | | | 40,839 | | | | | | 31,275 | | |
Gain on disposal of assets, net
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (99) | | |
Gain on retirement of debt – Note 11
|
| | | | (3,321) | | | | | | — | | |
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts receivable
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 1,212 | | |
Materials and supplies inventories
|
| | | | (182) | | | | | | 145 | | |
Production-related inventories
|
| | | | (138) | | | | | | 1,188 | | |
Prepaids and other
|
| | | | 947 | | | | | | (689) | | |
Income tax receivable
|
| | | | 145 | | | | | | (145) | | |
Accounts payable
|
| | | | 271 | | | | | | (698) | | |
Interest payable
|
| | | | 548 | | | | | | 7 | | |
Other liabilities
|
| | | | 1,228 | | | | | | (278) | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | | (26,925) | | | | | | (28,681) | | |
Cash flows from investing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Additions to plant and equipment
|
| | | | (1,146) | | | | | | (5) | | |
Proceeds from disposal of assets
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 251 | | |
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities
|
| | | | (1,146) | | | | | | 246 | | |
Cash flows from financing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Proceeds from debt issuances, net
|
| | | | 27,881 | | | | | | 39,916 | | |
Proceeds from the issuance of common stock
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 34 | | |
Repayments of principal on capital lease obligations
|
| | | | (47) | | | | | | (952) | | |
Repayments of first lien term loan
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (267) | | |
Refinancing issuance costs
|
| | | | (133) | | | | | | — | | |
Retirement of convertible notes – Note 11
|
| | | | (106) | | | | | | — | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | | 27,595 | | | | | | 38,731 | | |
Net (decrease) increase in cash
|
| | | | (476) | | | | | | 10,296 | | |
Cash, beginning of period
|
| | | | 53,337 | | | | | | 43,041 | | |
Cash, end of period
|
| | | $ | 52,861 | | | | | $ | 53,337 | | |
Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash: | | | | ||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
| | | $ | 9,138 | | | | | $ | 9,688 | | |
Restricted cash – current
|
| | | | 5,030 | | | | | | — | | |
Restricted cash – non-current
|
| | | | 38,693 | | | | | | 43,649 | | |
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
|
| | | $ | 52,861 | | | | | $ | 53,337 | | |
| | |
Common Stock
|
| |
Treasury Shares
|
| |
Additional
Paid-in Capital |
| |
Accumulated
Deficit |
| |
Total
Stockholders’ (Deficit) Equity |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1,
2017 |
| | | | 2,593,267 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,025 | | | | | $ | (215,592) | | | | | $ | (210,564) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (74,148) | | | | | | (74,148) | | |
Shares issued
|
| | | | 73,981 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Shares repurchased
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 65,572 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Warrants exercised
|
| | | | 1,441 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9 | | |
Phantom shares amendment(1)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 150 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 150 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2017
|
| | | | 2,668,689 | | | | | | 3 | | | | | | 65,572 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,184 | | | | | | (289,740) | | | | | | (284,553) | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (55,803) | | | | | | (55,803) | | |
Shares issued
|
| | | | 90,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Shares repurchased
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 95,082 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Balance at December 31, 2018
|
| | | | 2,758,689 | | | | | $ | 3 | | | | | | 160,654 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,184 | | | | | $ | (345,543) | | | | | $ | (340,356) | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Net cash used in operating activities | | | | ||||||||||
Amount prior to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | $ | (26,926) | | | | | $ | (28,681) | | |
Amount subsequent to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | | (26,925) | | | | | | (28,681) | | |
Change in net cash used in operating activities
|
| | | $ | 1 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities | | | | ||||||||||
Amount prior to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | | (1,610) | | | | | | 89 | | |
Amount subsequent to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | | (1,146) | | | | | | 246 | | |
Change in net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
| | | $ | 464 | | | | | $ | 157 | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities | | | | ||||||||||
Amount prior to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | | 27,986 | | | | | | 33,310 | | |
Amount subsequent to adoption of ASU 2016-18
|
| | | | 27,595 | | | | | | 38,731 | | |
Change in net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | | $ | (391) | | | | | $ | 5,421 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2018
|
| |
December 31, 2017
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Gold Ounces
|
| ||||||||||||
Materials and supplies
|
| | | $ | 1,582 | | | | | | — | | | | | $ | 1,544 | | | | | | — | | |
In-process inventories
|
| | | | 478 | | | | | | 482 | | | | | | 340 | | | | | | 347 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 2,060 | | | | | | 482 | | | | | $ | 1,884 | | | | | | 347 | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Prepaids and other, current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Prepaids
|
| | | $ | 1,722 | | | | | $ | 2,654 | | |
Deposits
|
| | | | 539 | | | | | | 554 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 2,261 | | | | | $ | 3,208 | | |
Other assets, non-current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred future financing costs
|
| | | $ | 1,158 | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
First Lien agreement restricted cash – Note 11
|
| | | $ | 5,030 | | | | | $ | 5,421 | | |
Asset retirement obligation surety bonds – Note 12 (collateralized obligation)
|
| | | | 38,693 | | | | | | 38,228 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 43,723 | | | | | $ | 43,649 | | |
|
| | |
Depreciation Life
of Method |
| |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| |||||||||
Mine equipment
|
| |
5 – 7 years
|
| | | $ | 3,905 | | | | | $ | 3,821 | | |
Process equipment
|
| |
5 – 13 years
|
| | | | 6,759 | | | | | | 6,759 | | |
Leach pads
|
| |
Units-of-production
|
| | | | 11,190 | | | | | | 11,190 | | |
Buildings and leasehold improvements
|
| |
10 years
|
| | | | 10,507 | | | | | | 10,507 | | |
Vehicles
|
| |
3 – 5 years
|
| | | | 41 | | | | | | — | | |
Furniture and office equipment
|
| |
7 years
|
| | | | 22 | | | | | | 5 | | |
Construction in progress and other
|
| | | | | | | 20,750 | | | | | | 19,746 | | |
| | | | | | | $ | 53,174 | | | | | $ | 52,028 | | |
Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | | | | (11,770) | | | | | | (8,358) | | |
Total
|
| | | | | | $ | 41,404 | | | | | $ | 43,670 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Impairment write-down by asset group | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mill expansion project
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 7,832 | | |
Impairment write-down by long-lived asset component | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Construction in progress and other
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 6,914 | | |
Buildings and leasehold improvements
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 918 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 7,832 | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Balance, beginning of year
|
| | | $ | 1,093 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Amortization of asset retirement cost asset
|
| | | | (61) | | | | | | — | | |
Increase in asset retirement cost asset
|
| | | | | | | | | | 1,093 | | |
Write-down of mineral property – Note 12
|
| | | | (1,032) | | | | | | — | | |
Balance, end of year
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,093 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Federal
|
| | | $ | 145 | | | | | $ | (145) | | |
Deferred: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Federal
|
| | | | (18,842) | | | | | | 124,088 | | |
Change in valuation allowance
|
| | | | 18,842 | | | | | | (124,088) | | |
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
| | | $ | 145 | | | | | $ | (145) | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Loss before income taxes
|
| | | $ | (55,658) | | | | | $ | (74,293) | | |
United States statutory income tax rate
|
| | | | 21% | | | | | | 35% | | |
Income tax (benefit) at United States statutory income tax rate
|
| | | $ | (11,688) | | | | | $ | (26,003) | | |
Change in valuation allowance
|
| | | | 18,842 | | | | | | (124,088) | | |
Return to provision adjustment / IRS adjustments
|
| | | | (7,029) | | | | | | 7,892 | | |
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 statutory income tax rate change
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 142,044 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 20 | | | | | | 10 | | |
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
| | | $ | 145 | | | | | $ | (145) | | |
|
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Plant, equipment, and mine development
|
| | | $ | 65,760 | | | | | $ | 72,911 | | |
Net operating loss
|
| | | | 126,143 | | | | | | 104,887 | | |
Inventories
|
| | | | 17,163 | | | | | | 28,913 | | |
Interest expense carryforward
|
| | | | 10,590 | | | | | | — | | |
Reorganization costs
|
| | | | 7,437 | | | | | | — | | |
Assets held-for-sale
|
| | | | 3,106 | | | | | | 1,667 | | |
Other liabilities
|
| | | | 490 | | | | | | 168 | | |
Asset retirement obligation
|
| | | | 1,225 | | | | | | 4,525 | | |
Credits and other
|
| | | | (6) | | | | | | (5) | | |
Valuation allowance
|
| | | | (231,908) | | | | | | (213,066) | | |
Total net deferred tax assets
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Other liabilities, current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accrued compensation for phantom shares – Note 15
|
| | | $ | 884 | | | | | $ | 750 | | |
Other accrued compensation
|
| | | | 892 | | | | | | 203 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 14 | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 1,790 | | | | | $ | 953 | | |
Other liabilities, non-current | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Warrant liability – Notes 13 and 16
|
| | | $ | 18 | | | | | $ | 18 | | |
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Debt, current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | $ | 125,468 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Other note payable
|
| | | | 5,989 | | | | | | 5,870 | | |
Capital lease obligations
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 47 | | |
Less debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (71) | | | | | | (6) | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 131,386 | | | | | $ | 5,911 | | |
Debt, non-current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Convertible Notes
|
| | | $ | 179,874 | | | | | $ | 158,378 | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 118,270 | | | | | | 76,247 | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 125,468 | | |
Less debt issuance costs
|
| | | | (1,943) | | | | | | (3,713) | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 296,201 | | | | | $ | 356,380 | | |
Transaction Period
|
| |
Note Issuances
|
| |
Interest In-Kind
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||
2016
|
| | | $ | 26,200 | | | | | $ | 1,535 | | | | | $ | 27,735 | | |
2017
|
| | | | 41,000 | | | | | | 7,512 | | | | | | 48,512 | | |
2018
|
| | | | 28,000 | | | | | | 14,023 | | | | | | 42,023 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 95,200 | | | | | $ | 23,070 | | | | | $ | 118,270 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Second Lien Convertible Notes
|
| | | $ | 24,923 | | | | | $ | 21,686 | | |
1.5 Lien Notes
|
| | | | 14,012 | | | | | | 7,914 | | |
First Lien Agreement
|
| | | | 9,589 | | | | | | 9,454 | | |
Amortization of debt issuance costs
|
| | | | 1,802 | | | | | | 1,500 | | |
Promissory Note
|
| | | | 567 | | | | | | 577 | | |
Capital lease obligations
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 21 | | |
Other interest expense
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 9 | | |
Total interest expense
|
| | | $ | 50,893 | | | | | $ | 41,161 | | |
|
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Balance, beginning of year
|
| | | $ | 21,548 | | | | | $ | 19,291 | | |
Accretion expense
|
| | | | 1,271 | | | | | | 1,164 | | |
Changes in estimates
|
| | | | (16,987) | | | | | | 1,093 | | |
Balance, end of year
|
| | | $ | 5,832 | | | | | $ | 21,548 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Amount
|
| |
Ounces
Sold |
| |
Amount
|
| |
Ounces
Sold |
| ||||||||||||
Gold sales
|
| | | $ | 178 | | | | | | 145 | | | | | $ | 3,558 | | | | | | 2,875 | | |
Silver sales
|
| | | | 2 | | | | | | 124 | | | | | | 169 | | | | | | 10,967 | | |
Total gold and silver sales
|
| | | $ | 180 | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 3,727 | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Hierarchy
Level |
| |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| |||||||||
Liabilities
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accrued compensation for phantom shares
|
| |
3
|
| | | $ | 884 | | | | | $ | 750 | | |
Derivative instruments:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Warrant liability – Notes 13 and 16
|
| |
2
|
| | | $ | 18 | | | | | $ | 18 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2018
|
| |
December 31, 2017
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Carrying
Amount |
| |
Fair Value
|
| |
Carrying
Amount |
| |
Fair Value
|
| ||||||||||||
Total current and non-current debt
|
| | | $ | 427,587 | | | | | $ | 350,000 | | | | | $ | 362,291 | | | | | $ | 362,291 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Cash paid for interest
|
| | | $ | 9,409 | | | | | $ | 9,467 | | |
Significant non-cash financing and investing activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mineral property addition through asset retirement obligation increase
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 1,093 | | |
Increase in Second Lien convertible notes from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 24,869 | | | | | | 21,686 | | |
Increase in 1.5 Lien Notes from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 14,023 | | | | | | 7,512 | | |
Increase in the Promissory Note from in-kind interest
|
| | | | 117 | | | | | | 577 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Aristeia | | | | $ | 4,394 | | | | | $ | 3,186 | | |
Highbridge | | | | | 6,934 | | | | | | 4,821 | | |
Mudrick | | | | | 17,766 | | | | | | 13,404 | | |
Whitebox | | | | | 11,444 | | | | | | 8,296 | | |
Wolverine | | | | | 2,130 | | | | | | 1,544 | | |
Total related party interest expense
|
| | | $ | 42,668 | | | | | $ | 31,251 | | |
|
| | |
December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2018
|
| |
2017
|
| ||||||
Aristeia | | | | $ | 35,939 | | | | | $ | 28,014 | | |
Highbridge | | | | | 58,709 | | | | | | 43,392 | | |
Mudrick | | | | | 152,757 | | | | | | 127,011 | | |
Whitebox | | | | | 93,583 | | | | | | 72,943 | | |
Wolverine | | | | | 23,998 | | | | | | 13,583 | | |
Total related party debt
|
| | | $ | 364,986 | | | | | $ | 284,943 | | |
| | |
Page
|
| |||
| | | | A-3 | | | |
| | | | A-3 | | | |
| | | | A-3 | | | |
| | | | A-3 | | | |
| | | | A-4 | | | |
| | | | A-5 | | | |
| | | | A-5 | | | |
| | | | A-5 | | | |
| | | | A-5 | | | |
| | | | A-6 | | | |
| | | | A-6 | | | |
| | | | A-7 | | | |
| | | | A-8 | | | |
| | | | A-8 | | | |
| | | | A-9 | | | |
| | | | A-9 | | | |
| | | | A-10 | | | |
| | | | A-10 | | | |
| | | | A-10 | | | |
| | | | A-10 | | | |
| | | | A-12 | | | |
| | | | A-13 | | | |
| | | | A-13 | | | |
| | | | A-15 | | | |
| | | | A-16 | | | |
| | | | A-17 | | | |
| | | | A-17 | | | |
| | | | A-18 | | | |
| | | | A-20 | | | |
| | | | A-20 | | | |
| | | | A-20 | | | |
| | | | A-20 | | | |
| | | | A-20 | | | |
| | | | A-22 | | | |
| | | | A-22 | | | |
| | | | A-23 | | | |
| | | | A-23 | | | |
| | | | A-23 | | | |
| | | | A-24 | | | |
| | | | A-24 | | |
| | |
Page
|
| |||
| | | | A-24 | | | |
| | | | A-25 | | | |
| | | | A-25 | | | |
| | | | A-26 | | | |
| | | | A-26 | | | |
| | | | A-27 | | | |
| | | | A-27 | | | |
| | | | A-27 | | | |
| | | | A-28 | | | |
| | | | A-28 | | | |
| | | | A-28 | | | |
| | | | A-28 | | | |
| | | | A-29 | | | |
| | | | A-29 | | | |
| | | | A-29 | | | |
| | | | A-29 | | | |
| | | | A-30 | | | |
| | | | A-30 | | | |
| | | | A-32 | | | |
| | | | A-34 | | | |
| | | | A-34 | | | |
| | | | A-36 | | | |
| | | | A-37 | | | |
| | | | A-37 | | | |
| | | | A-38 | | | |
| | | | A-38 | | | |
| | | | A-39 | | | |
| | | | A-39 | | | |
| | | | A-40 | | | |
| | | | A-40 | | | |
| | | | A-40 | | | |
| | | | A-41 | | | |
| | | | A-41 | | | |
| | | | A-42 | | | |
| | | | A-42 | | | |
| | | | A-44 | | | |
| | | | A-44 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-45 | | |
| | |
Page
|
| |||
| | | | A-45 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-46 | | | |
| | | | A-47 | | | |
| | | | A-47 | | | |
| | | | A-47 | | | |
| | | | A-47 | | | |
| | | | A-47 | | | |
| | | | A-48 | | | |
| | | | A-49 | | | |
| | | | A-50 | | | |
| | | | A-50 | | | |
| | | | A-51 | | | |
| | | | A-51 | | | |
| | | | A-51 | | | |
| | | | A-51 | | | |
| | | | A-52 | | | |
| | | | A-53 | | | |
| | | | A-53 | | | |
| | | | A-53 | | | |
| | | | A-53 | | | |
| | | | A-53 | | | |
| | | | A-54 | | | |
| | | | A-54 | | | |
| | | | A-54 | | | |
| | | | A-54 | | | |
| | | | A-55 | | | |
| | | | A-55 | | | |
| | | | A-55 | | | |
| | | | A-55 | | | |
| | | | A-56 | | | |
| | | | A-56 | | |
| Exhibit A | | | Form of Seller Support Agreement | |
| Exhibit B | | | Form of Post-Closing Parent Charter | |
| Exhibit C | | | Form of Trust Termination Letter | |
| Exhibit D | | | Form of Registration Rights Agreement | |
| Exhibit E | | | Form of Sprott Royalty Agreement | |
| Exhibit F | | | Allocation Principles | |
| SCHEDULES | | |||
| Schedule A | | | A-Defined Terms | |
| “1.25 Lien Debt” | | | Schedule A, Section B(a) | |
| “1.25 Lien Exchange Agreement” | | | Recital 8 | |
| “1.25 Lien Note Purchase Agreement” | | | Schedule A, Section B(b) | |
| “1.25 Lien Notes” | | | Schedule A, Section B(c) | |
| “1.5 Lien Cash Payment Amount” | | | Schedule A, Section B(d) | |
| “1.5 Lien Debt” | | | Schedule A, Section B(e) | |
| “1.5 Lien Notes” | | | Schedule A, Section B(f) | |
| “1.5 Lien Share Payment” | | | Schedule A, Section B(g) | |
| “1.5 Lien Share Payment Value” | | | Schedule A, Section B(h) | |
| “Acquisition” | | | Recital 3 | |
| “Acquisition Sub” | | | Preamble | |
| “Acquisition Sub Assumed Liabilities” | | | Section 5.10 | |
| “Acquisition Sub Common Stock” | | | Section 3.3(b) | |
| “Affiliate” | | | Schedule A, Section B(i) | |
| “Aggregate Acquisition Consideration” | | | Schedule A, Section B(j) | |
| “Agreement” | | | Preamble | |
| “Allied Delaware” | | | Recital 2 | |
| “Allied VGH” | | | Recital 2 | |
| “Allocation” | | | Section 5.16(b) | |
| “Alternative Transaction” | | | Section 5.13(b) | |
| “Assignment and Assumption Agreement” | | | Section 1.4(b)(iv) | |
| “Assumed Benefit Plans” | | | Schedule A, Section B(k) | |
| “Assumed New Subordinated Notes” | | | Recital 8 | |
| “Business Combination” | | | Schedule A, Section B(l) | |
| “Business Day” | | | Schedule A, Section B(m) | |
| “Cash Available for Payment” | | | Schedule A, Section B(m) | |
| “Charter Documents” | | | Schedule A, Section B(o) | |
| “Chosen Courts” | | | Schedule A, Section B(p) | |
| “Closing” | | | Section 1.2 | |
| “Closing Date” | | | Section 1.2 | |
| “Closing Form 8-K” | | | Section 5.3(c) | |
| “Closing Press Release” | | | Section 5.3(c) | |
| “Code” | | | Schedule A, Section B(q) | |
| “Continental” | | | Section 3.14(a) | |
| “Contracts” | | | Schedule A, Section B(r) | |
| “Copyrights” | | | Schedule A, Section B(jj) | |
| “Crofoot Royalty Agreements” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(s) | |
| “Current 1.25 Lien Note Purchase Agreements” | | | Schedule A, Section B(b) | |
| “Data Room” | | | Section 8.2 | |
| “DGCL” | | | Recital 3 | |
| “DLLCA” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(t) | |
| “Direct Subsidiaries” | | | Recital B | |
| “Direct Subsidiary Equity Interests” | | | Recital 2 | |
| “Effective Time” | | | Section 1.2 | |
| “Emergence Date” | | | Section 2.5 | |
| “Employee Benefit Plans” | | | Section 2.10(a) | |
| “Employees” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(u) | |
| “Enforceability Exceptions” | | | Section 2.3(a) | |
| “Environmental Law” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(v) | |
| “Environmental Permits” | | | Section 2.15(a)(i) | |
| “ERISA” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(w) | |
| “ERISA Affiliate” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(x) | |
| “Excess Notes” | | | Recital 9 | |
| “Excess Notes Cash Payment Amount” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(y) | |
| “Excess Notes Share Payment” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(z) | |
| “Excess Notes Share Payment Value” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(aa) | |
| “Exchange Act” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(bb) | |
| “Exchange Agreement” | | | Recital 9 | |
| “Excluded Seller Contract” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(cc) | |
| “Extended Business Combination Date” | | | Section 5.33 | |
| “Extension” | | | Section 5.33 | |
| “First Lien Debt” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(dd) | |
| “Forward Purchase Contract” | | | Recital 13 | |
| “Governmental Entity” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ee) | |
| “Hazardous Substance” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ff) | |
| “HR&D” | | | Recital 16 | |
| “HSR Act” | | | Section 2.4(b) | |
| “Incentive Plan” | | | Section 5.1(b) | |
| “Indebtedness” | | | Schedule A, Section B(gg) | |
| “Indemnified Party” | | | Section 5.15(a) | |
| “Initial Subscribers” | | | Schedule A, Section B(hh) | |
| “Insider” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ii) | |
| “Insurance Policies” | | | Section 2.20 | |
| “Intellectual Property” | | | Schedule A, Section B(jj) | |
| “Intellectual Property License Agreement” | | | Section 2.17(b) | |
| “IPO” | | | Schedule A, Section B(kk) | |
| “IPO Prospectus” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ll) | |
| “Jacobs Note” | | | Schedule A, Section B(mm) | |
| “JOBS Act” | | | Section 5.22 | |
| “Knowledge” | | | Schedule A, Section B(nn) | |
| “Law” | | | Schedule A, Section B(oo) | |
| “Leased Real Property” | | | Section 2.13(b) | |
| “Legal Proceeding” | | | Schedule A, Section B(pp) | |
| “Licensed Intellectual Property” | | | Section 2.17(b) | |
| “Lien” | | | Schedule A, Section B(qq) | |
| “LLC Conversions” | | | Schedule A, Section B(rr) | |
| “Material Seller Contracts” | | | Section 2.18(a) | |
| “Mine” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ss) | |
| “Minerals” | | | Schedule A, Section B(tt) | |
| “Mining Restart Plan” | | | Schedule A, Section B(uu) | |
| “Nasdaq” | | | Section 3.13 | |
| “Nevada Gold” | | | Recital 2 | |
| “New Subordinated Notes” | | | Schedule A, Section B(vv) | |
| “Nonparty Affiliates” | | | Section 8.14 | |
| “Operating Equipment and Facilities” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ww) | |
| “Order” | | | Schedule A, Section B(xx) | |
| “Ordinary Course of Business” | | | Schedule A, Section B(yy) | |
| “Outside Date” | | | Section 7.1(b) | |
| “Outstanding Parent Expenses” | | | Schedule A, Section B(zz) | |
| “Owned Property” | | | Section 2.13(a) | |
| “Parent” | | | Preamble | |
| “Parent Assumed Liabilities” | | | Section 5.10 | |
| “Parent Audited Financial Statements” | | | Section 3.7(b) | |
| “Parent Board” | | | Recital 6 | |
| “Parent Business Combination” | | | Section 5.13(a) | |
| “Parent Class A Common Stock” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Parent Class B Common Stock” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Parent Common Stock” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Parent Contracts” | | | Section 3.11(a) | |
| “Parent Disclosure Letter” | | | Article III | |
| “Parent Financial Statements” | | | Section 3.7(b) | |
| “Parent Interim Financial Statements” | | | Section 3.7(b) | |
| “Parent Material Adverse Effect” | | | Schedule A, Section B(aaa) | |
| “Parent Preferred Stock” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Parent Recommendation” | | | Recital 6 | |
| “Parent SEC Reports” | | | Section 3.7(a) | |
| “Parent Special Meeting” | | | Section 5.1(b) | |
| “Parent Sponsor Letter Agreement” | | | Recital 14 | |
| “Parent Stock” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Parent Stockholder” | | | Schedule A, Section B(bbb) | |
| “Parent Stockholder Matters” | | | Section 5.1(b) | |
| “Parent Stockholder Redemption” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ccc) | |
| “Parent Stockholder Redemptions” | | | Schedule A, Section B(ddd) | |
| “Parent Units” | | | Schedule A, Section B(eee) | |
| “Parent Warrants” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Party” or “Parties” | | | Preamble | |
| “Patented Claims” | | | Section 2.23(a) | |
| “Patents” | | | Schedule A, Section B(jj) | |
| “Payoff Amounts” | | | Section 5.24 | |
| “Payoff Letters” | | | Section 5.24 | |
| “Permit” | | | Schedule A, Section B(fff) | |
| “Permitted Lien” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ggg) | |
| “Person” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(hhh) | |
| “Personal Information” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(iii) | |
| “Personal Property” | | | Section 2.13(f) | |
| “Post-Closing Parent Charter” | | | Section 5.1(b) | |
| “Precious Metals” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(jjj) | |
| “Privacy Laws” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(kkk) | |
| “Private Investment” | | | Recital 12 | |
| “Private Investment Value” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(lll) | |
| “Private Placement Warrants” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Public Warrants” | | | Section 3.3(a) | |
| “Purchase Shares” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(mmm) | |
| “Real Property Leases” | | | Section 2.13(b) | |
| “Registration Statement” | | | Section 5.1(a) | |
| “Registration Rights Agreement” | | | Section 5.28 | |
| “Representatives” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(nnn) | |
| “Requisite Parent Stockholder Approval” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ooo) | |
| “Requisite Seller Stockholder Approval” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ppp) | |
| “Retained Cash” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(qqq) | |
| “Retained Employees” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(rrr) | |
| “Reviewable Document” | | | Section 5.4(a) | |
| “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” | | | Section 3.7(d) | |
| “SEC” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(sss) | |
| “Second Lien Conversion Agreement” | | | Recital 10 | |
| “Second Lien Notes” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ttt) | |
| “Securities Act” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(uuu) | |
| “Seller” | | | Preamble | |
| “Seller Audited Financial Statements” | | | Section 2.6(a) | |
| “Seller Board” | | | Recital 4 | |
| “Seller Common Stock” | | | Recital 5 | |
| “Seller Contracts” | | | Section 2.18(a) | |
| “Seller Disclosure Letter” | | | Section 2.1(a) | |
| “Seller Financial Statements” | | | Section 2.6(b) | |
| “Seller Fundamental Representations” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(vvv) | |
| “Seller Intellectual Property” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(www) | |
| “Seller Interim Financial Statements” | | | Section 2.6(b) | |
| “Seller Material Adverse Effect” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(xxx) | |
| “Seller Registered Intellectual Property” | | | Section 2.17(a) | |
| “Seller Special Meeting” | | | Section 5.1(c) | |
| “Seller Stockholder” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(yyy) | |
| “Seller Subsidiaries” | | | Section 2.1(a) | |
| “Seller Support Agreement” | | | Recital 5 | |
| “Seller Systems” | | | Section 2.17(g) | |
| “Seller Warrant” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(zzz) | |
| “Signing Press Release” | | | Section 5.3(b) | |
| “Signing Form 8-K” | | | Section 5.3(a) | |
| “Sponsor” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(aaaa) | |
| “Sprott Credit Agreement” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(bbbb) | |
| “Sprott Royalty Agreement” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(cccc) | |
| “Stockholders Agreement” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(dddd) | |
| “Subsidiary” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(eeee) | |
| “Subsidiary Equity Interests” | | | Section 2.2(a) | |
| “Surrendered Shares” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(ffff) | |
| “Surrendered Shares Value” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(gggg) | |
| “Tax/Taxes” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(hhhh) | |
| “Tax Return” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(iiii) | |
| “Third-Party Private Investment Value” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(jjjj) | |
| “Third-Party Private Investors” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(kkkk) | |
| “Termination Fee” | | | Section 7.2(c) | |
| “Trademarks” | | | Schedule A, Section B(jj) | |
| “Transaction Agreements” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(llll) | |
| “Transaction Litigation” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(mmmm) | |
| “Transactions” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(nnnn) | |
| “Transferred Assets” | | | Section 2.1(a) | |
| “Transferred Employees” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(oooo) | |
| “Treasury Regulation” | | | Schedule A, Section 1.2(pppp) | |
| “Trust Account” | | | Section 3.14(a) | |
| “Trust Agreement” | | | Section 3.14(a) | |
| “Trust Termination Letter” | | | Section 5.6 | |
| “U.S. GAAP” | | | Section 2.6(a) | |
| “Unpatented Claims” | | | Section 2.23(b) | |
| “Waived 280G Benefits” | | | Section 5.17 | |
| “WARN” | | | Section 2.11(d) | |
| “Water Rights” | | | Section 2.23(o) | |
Noteholder
|
| |
Principal
Amount of 1.5 Lien Notes Beneficially Owned(1) |
| |||
Aristeia Master LP
|
| | | $ | 14,783,381 | | |
Highbridge MSF International Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 14,730,129 | | |
Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 7,220,287 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Drawdown Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 4,195,671 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Fund Global, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 32,182,464 | | |
Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A
|
| | | $ | 8,554,838 | | |
Boston Patriot Batterymarch St LLC
|
| | | $ | 6,833,737 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Specialty Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 1,689,612 | | |
Mercer QIF Fund PLC
|
| | | $ | 1,190,445 | | |
WBox 2015-5 Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 38,501,190 | | |
Wolverine Flagship Fund Trading Limited
|
| | | $ | 7,168,119 | | |
Noteholder
|
| |
Principal Amount of
New Subordinated Notes to be Beneficially Owned(2) |
| |
Principal Amount
of Assumed New Subordinated Notes to be Beneficially Owned(3) |
| |
Principal
Amount of Excess Notes to be Beneficially Owned(4) |
| |||||||||
Aristeia Master LP
|
| | | $ | 8,373,833 | | | | | $ | 8,373,833 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Highbridge MSF International Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 8,443,328 | | | | | $ | 8,443,328 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 3,990,181 | | | | | $ | 3,990,181 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Drawdown Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 4,968,629 | | | | | $ | 4,968,629 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Fund Global, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 12,140,130 | | | | | $ | 12,140,130 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A
|
| | | $ | 4,311,103 | | | | | $ | 4,311,103 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Boston Patriot Batterymarch St LLC
|
| | | $ | 5,691,316 | | | | | $ | 5,691,316 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Specialty Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 1,176,016 | | | | | $ | 1,176,016 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Mercer QIF Fund PLC
|
| | | $ | 2,666,685 | | | | | $ | 2,666,685 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
WBOX 2015-5 LTD.
|
| | | $ | 21,808,456 | | | | | $ | 21,808,456 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
WFF Cayman II Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 4,060,278 | | | | | $ | 4,060,278 | | | | | $ | 0 | | |
Seller Stockholder Name
|
| |
Addresses for Notice
|
|
Aristeia Master LP | | |
c/o Aristeia Capital
One Greenwich Plaza, 3rd Floor Greenwich, CT 06830 Attn: Robert Lynch; Andrew David Email: lynch@aristeiacapital.com; andrew.david@aristeiacapital.com Fax: 212-842-8901 |
|
Highbridge MSF International Ltd. | | |
c/o Highbridge Capital Management LLC
277 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 100172 Attn: Glynnis Kelly Email:glynnis.kelly@highbridge.com; mo-us@highbridge.com |
|
Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund, L.P. | | |
c/o Highbridge Capital Management LLC
277 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 100172 Attn: Glynnis Kelly Email:glynnis.kelly@highbridge.com; mo-us@highbridge.com |
|
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Drawdown Fund, L.P. | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Fund Global, L.P. | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Boston Patriot Batterymarch St LLC | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Specialty Fund, L.P. | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Mercer QIF Fund PLC | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
|
Seller Stockholder Name
|
| |
Addresses for Notice
|
|
WBox 2015-5 Ltd. | | |
3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 500
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Jacob Mercer, Andrew Thau Email: WHB_LoanDocsHedgeFund_Dist@Whiteboxadvisors.com; HS_WhiteboxBankDebt@hedgeserv.com Fax: 612-355-2198; 646-753-8167 |
|
Wolverine Flagship Fund Trading Limited | | |
c/o Wolverine Asset Management, LLC
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 340 Chicago, IL 60604 Attn: Kenneth L. Nadel Email: notices@wolvefunds.com Fax: 312-884-4401 |
|
WFF Cayman II Ltd. | | |
c/o Wolverine Asset Management, LLC
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 340 Chicago, IL 60604 Attn: Kenneth L. Nadel Email: notices@wolvefunds.com Fax: 312-884-4401 |
|
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
Seller Stockholder Name
|
| |
Addresses for Notice
|
| |
Shares of
Seller Common Stock |
|
Whitebox Asymmetric Partners, LP | | |
3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Jacob Mercer, Andrew Thau Email: jmercer@whiteboxadvisors.com, AThau@whiteboxadvisors.com Fax: 612-355-2004 |
| | 171,196 | |
Whitebox Credit Partners, LP | | |
3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Jacob Mercer, Andrew Thau Email: jmercer@whiteboxadvisors.com, AThau@whiteboxadvisors.com Fax: 612-355-2004 |
| | 123,639 | |
Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, LP | | |
3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Jacob Mercer, Andrew Thau Email: jmercer@whiteboxadvisors.com, AThau@whiteboxadvisors.com Fax: 612-355-2004 |
| | 125,664 | |
Whitebox Institutional Partners, LP | | |
3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416 Attn: Jacob Mercer, Andrew Thau Email: jmercer@whiteboxadvisors.com, AThau@whiteboxadvisors.com Fax: 612-355-2004 |
| | 68,942 | |
Aristeia Master, L.P | | |
1140 Avenue of the Americas.
New York, NY 10036 Attn: Robert Lynch Email: lynch@aristeiacapital.com Fax: 212-842-8901 |
| | 116,608 | |
Windermere Ireland Fund PLC | | |
1140 Avenue of the Americas.
New York, NY 10036 Attn: Robert Lynch Email: lynch@aristeiacapital.com Fax: 212-842-8901 |
| | 5,437 | |
Wolverine Flagship Fund Trading Limited | | |
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 340
Chicago, IL 60604 Attn: Bruce Mygatt Email: bmygatt@wolvefunds.com Fax: 312-884-4401 |
| | 71,534 | |
Highbridge MSF International Ltd. | | |
40 West 57th Street, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019 Attn: Glynnis Kelly Email:glynnis.kelly@highbridge.com |
| | 258,791 | |
Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund, L.P. | | |
40 West 57th Street, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019 Attn: Glynnis Kelly Email:glynnis.kelly@highbridge.com |
| | 98,002 | |
Seller Stockholder Name
|
| |
Addresses for Notice
|
| |
Shares of
Seller Common Stock |
|
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Fund Global, L.P. | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email: dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
| | 525,250 | |
Blackwell partners LLC — Series A | | |
527 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022 Attn: David Kirsch Email:dkirsch@mudrickcapital.com |
| | 111,075 | |
Total
|
| |
N/A
|
| | 1,676,138 | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
| | |
Page
|
|
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | | ||
| | |
Schedules
|
| | | |
1.1 | | | Exchanging Holders | |
1.3 | | | Wire Transfer Instructions | |
Exchanging Holder
|
| |
Principal amount of
Existing Notes(1) |
| |
Principal amount of
Notes to be issued on closing(2) |
| ||||||
Aristeia Master LP
|
| | | $ | 8,328,719 | | | | | $ | 8,373,833 | | |
Highbridge MSF International Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 8,397,839 | | | | | $ | 8,443,328 | | |
Highbridge Tactical Credit Master Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 3,968,684 | | | | | $ | 3,990,181 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Drawdown Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 4,941,860 | | | | | $ | 4,968,629 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Fund Global LP
|
| | | $ | 12,074,725 | | | | | $ | 12,140,130 | | |
Blackwell Partners LLC – Series A
|
| | | $ | 4,287,877 | | | | | $ | 4,311,103 | | |
Boston Patriot Batterymarch St LLC
|
| | | $ | 5,660,654 | | | | | $ | 5,691,316 | | |
Mudrick Distressed Opportunity Specialty Fund, L.P.
|
| | | $ | 1,169,680 | | | | | $ | 1,176,016 | | |
Mercer QIF Fund PLC
|
| | | $ | 2,652,318 | | | | | $ | 2,666,685 | | |
WBOX 2015-5 LTD.
|
| | | $ | 21,690,963 | | | | | $ | 21,808,456 | | |
WFF Cayman II Ltd.
|
| | | $ | 4,038,404 | | | | | $ | 4,060,278 | | |
| Account Name: | | |
Hycroft Mining Corporation
8181 East Tufts Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80237 |
|
| Bank: | | | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | |
| | | | San Francisco, CA | |
| ABA # | | | 121000248 | |
| Account Number | | | 4126096528 | |
|
Signature
|
| |
Title
|
| |
Date
|
|
|
/s/ Jason Mudrick
Jason Mudrick
|
| |
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) |
| | February 14, 2020 | |
|
/s/ Glenn Springer
Glenn Springer
|
| |
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
| | February 14, 2020 | |
|
/s/ David Kirsch
David Kirsch
|
| | Vice President and Director | | | February 14, 2020 | |
|
/s/ Dennis Stogsdill
Dennis Stogsdill
|
| | Director | | | February 14, 2020 | |
|
/s/ Timothy Daileader
Timothy Daileader
|
| | Director | | | February 14, 2020 | |
|
/s/ Dr. Brian Kushner
Dr. Brian Kushner
|
| | Director | | | February 14, 2020 | |
Exhibit 10.8
CREDIT AGREEMENT
DATED AS OF OCTOBER 4, 2019
Between:
HYCROFT
MINING CORPORATION,
as borrower
- and -
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
- and -
ALLIED VGH INC.,
as Guarantors
- and -
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (COLLECTOR),
LP,
as Lender
SPROTT RESOURCE LENDING CORP.
as Arranger
- i - |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Article 1 INTERPRETATION | - 2 - |
Definitions | - 2 - |
Interpretation Not Affected by Headings | - 17 - |
Statute References | - 17 - |
Permitted Encumbrance | - 17 - |
Currency | - 17 - |
Use of the Words “Best Knowledge”, "continuing" and "indebtedness" | - 17 - |
Non-Business Days | - 17 - |
Governing Law | - 18 - |
Paramountcy | - 18 - |
Enurement | - 18 - |
Interpretation | - 18 - |
Time of Essence | - 18 - |
Accounting Terms | - 18 - |
Schedules | - 18 - |
Article 2 THE FACILITy | - 19 - |
The Facility | - 19 - |
Non-Revolvement | - 19 - |
Notice of Borrowing | - 19 - |
Term | - 19 - |
Use of Proceeds | - 20 - |
Interest | - 20 - |
Additional Interest | - 20 - |
Original Issue Discount | - 21 - |
Computations | - 21 - |
No Set-off | - 22 - |
Time and Place of Payments | - 22 - |
Record of Payments | - 22 - |
Article 3 SHARE PURCHASE RIGHT | - 22 - |
Partner Alignment Shares | - 22 - |
Article 4 rePayment / prePayment | - 23 - |
Principal Repayments | - 23 - |
Voluntary Prepayment | - 23 - |
Mandatory Prepayments of the Facility | - 23 - |
Prepayment Premium | - 24 - |
Article 5 SECURITY | - 25 - |
Security Documents | - 25 - |
Registration of the Security | - 25 - |
After Acquired Property and Further Assurances | - 25 - |
Article 6 CONDITIONS precedent to advances | - 25 - |
Conditions Precedent to the First Tranche Advance | - 25 - |
Waiver | - 30 - |
Conditions Precedent to the Second Tranche Advance | - 30 - |
Waiver | - 32 - |
Conditions Precedent to Third Tranche Advances | - 32 - |
Waiver | - 34 - |
Article 7 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES | - 34 - |
- ii - |
Representations and Warranties of the Credit Parties | - 34 - |
Acknowledgement | - 40 - |
Survival and Inclusion | - 40 - |
Article 8 COVENANTS OF THE borrower | - 41 - |
General Covenants | - 41 - |
Negative Covenants of the Credit Parties | - 45 - |
Continued Listing | - 46 - |
To Pay Lender’s Fees and Expenses | - 46 - |
Comply with Applicable Disclosure Obligations | - 47 - |
To Pay Additional Amounts | - 47 - |
Further Assurances | - 48 - |
Lender May Perform Covenants | - 48 - |
Article 9 DEFAULT AND ENFORCEMENT | - 49 - |
Events of Default | - 49 - |
Acceleration on Default | - 51 - |
Waiver of Default | - 51 - |
Enforcement by the Lender | - 51 - |
Application of Moneys | - 52 - |
Persons Dealing with Lender | - 52 - |
Lender Appointed Attorney | - 52 - |
Remedies Cumulative | - 52 - |
Article 10 BREAK FEE | - 53 - |
Break Fee | - 53 - |
Article 11 NOTICES | - 53 - |
Notice to the Borrower | - 53 - |
Notice to the Lender or the Arranger | - 53 - |
Waiver of Notice | - 54 - |
Article 12 indemnities | - 54 - |
General Indemnity | - 54 - |
Environmental Indemnity | - 54 - |
Action by Lender to Protect Interests | - 55 - |
Article 13 miscellaneous | - 55 - |
Amendments and Waivers | - 55 - |
No Waiver; Remedies Cumulative | - 55 - |
Survival | - 55 - |
Benefits of Agreement | - 55 - |
Binding Effect; Assignment; Syndication | - 56 - |
Maximum Return | - 56 - |
Judgment Currency | - 57 - |
Entire Agreement | - 57 - |
Joint and Several | - 57 - |
Payments Set Aside | - 58 - |
Severability | - 58 - |
Counterparts and facsimile | - 58 - |
Confidentiality | - 58 - |
- iii - |
SCHEDULES:
Schedule A | - | Project |
Schedule B | - | Security Documents |
Schedule C | - | Shares and ownership interests |
Schedule D | - | Material contracts |
Schedule E | - | Authorizations to be obtained on or prior to Advances |
Schedule F | - | Compliance Certificate |
Schedule G | - | [Intentionally Deleted] |
Schedule H | - | Form of Sprott Royalty |
Schedule I | - | Insolvency Proceedings |
Schedule J | - | Interest of Directors and Officers |
Schedule K | - | Acquisition Transaction & Note Exchange Agreement |
CREDIT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 4th day of October, 2019
BETWEEN:
hycroft mining corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, as borrower
AND:
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Nevada
(hereinafter referred to as “Hycroft Resources”)
ALLIED VGH INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Nevada
(hereinafter referred to as “Allied VGH”, and together with Hycroft Resources, the “Guarantors”)
AND:
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (COLLECTOR), LP, a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the Province of Ontario
(hereinafter referred to as the “Lender”)
AND:
SPROTT RESOURCE LENDING CORP.
(hereinafter referred to as the “Arranger”)
WHEREAS the Borrower (as hereinafter defined) has requested, and the Arranger has arranged for, a senior secured credit facility to be provided by the Lender in the principal amount of up to $110,000,000, on and subject to the terms and conditions herein set forth.
NOW THEREFORE THIS CREDIT AGREEMENT WITNESSES that for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties agree as follows:
- 2 - |
Article 1
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
1.1 | In this Agreement, unless there is something in the subject matter or context inconsistent therewith: |
“2019 Model” means the financial model delivered by the Borrower to the Lender on January 12, 2019, containing the Project mining plan and related financial projections, along with the Borrower’s financial forecast for all other revenues, costs and expenses to be incurred by the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries in connection therewith;
“Acquisition Corp.” means Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation;
“Acquisition Corp. SEC Reports” means all registration statements, reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents filed by Acquisition Corp. with the SEC under the Securities Act and/or the Exchange Act since its formation (in each case, as amended since the time of their filing and including all exhibits thereto);
“Acquisition Transaction” means the acquisition of (i) all of the issued and outstanding Equity Interests of Allied Nevada Gold Holdings LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Allied VGH and Allied Nevada Delaware Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation and (ii) the Other Assets (as defined in the Purchase Agreement) by Acquisition Corp. pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, all as described in Schedule K hereto.
“Additional Interest” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 2.9;
“Advances” means collectively, the advances of the Facility as contemplated herein, comprised of the First Tranche advance, the Second Tranche advance and the Third Tranche advance(s), and “Advance” means any one of them;
“Affiliate” has the meaning given thereto in the Securities Act;
“Agreement”, “this Agreement”, “hereto”, “hereby”, “hereunder”, “hereof”, “herein” and similar expressions refer to this credit agreement, as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time, and not to any particular Article, Section, subsection, paragraph, clause, subdivision or other portion hereof, and include any and every supplemental agreement; and the expressions “Article”, “Section”, “subsection” and “paragraph” followed by a number mean and refer to the specified Article, Section, subsection or paragraph of this Agreement;
“Amount” or “Amount Payable” includes the principal amount advanced hereunder and any other amount payable hereunder or under any of the Facility Documents;
“Anti-Corruption Laws” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 7.1(pp);
“Applicable Law” means, at any time, with respect to any Person, property, transaction, event or other matter, as applicable, all laws, rules, statutes, regulations, treaties, orders, judgments and decrees, and all official requests, directives, rules, guidelines, orders, policies, practices and other requirements of any Governmental Authority having the force of law relating or applicable at such time to such Person, property, transaction, event or other matter, and also includes any interpretation thereof by any Person having jurisdiction over it or charged with its administration or interpretation;
“Applicable Securities Legislation” means the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and all other securities laws and the respective rules and regulations under such laws together with applicable published fee schedules, prescribed forms, policy statements, national or multilateral instruments, orders, blanket rulings and other applicable regulatory instruments of the SEC and the securities regulatory authorities in any other jurisdictions as may be agreed to between the Borrower and the Lender, in each case applicable to the Borrower and having the force of law;
“Arranger” means Sprott Resource Lending Corp.;
“Availability Period” means:
- 3 - |
(a) | in respect of the First Tranche, the period commencing on the date of this Agreement and ending on April 15, 2020; and |
(b) | in respect of the Second Tranche, the period commencing on the First Tranche Closing Date and ending on April 15, 2020; and |
(c) | in respect of the Third Tranche, the period commencing on the First Tranche Closing Date and ending on December 31, 2020, |
or such later date as the Lender may determine in its sole and absolute discretion, by written notice to the Borrower;
“Available Cash” means Unrestricted Cash, less an amount equal to the consolidated accounts payable of the Credit Parties, as determined from time to time;
“Authorization” means any authorization, consent, approval, resolution, licence, permit, concession, exemption, filing, notarization or registration;
“Borrower” means Hycroft Mining Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, and its successors and permitted assigns, which, for the avoidance of doubt shall be, Acquisition Corp. following the completion of the Acquisition Transaction;
“Borrower’s Auditors” means, at any time, a firm of certified public accountants duly appointed as auditors of the Borrower;
“Borrowing Notice” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 2.4;
“Break Fee” has the meaning attributed to the term in 10.1;
“Business Day” means any day other than Saturday, Sunday or a statutory holiday when banks are not open in Toronto, Ontario or Denver, Colorado;
“Certificate of the Borrower” means an instrument signed in the name of the Borrower and without personal liability by any Director or senior officer of the Borrower, certifying the matters specified therein;
“Change of Control” means the occurrence, after the date of execution and delivery of this Agreement, of any of the following events:
(a) | the acquisition by any Person, or two or more Persons acting in concert, of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 of the SEC under the Exchange Act) of 40% or more of the Voting Shares, on a fully diluted basis; |
(b) | there is consummated any amalgamation, consolidation, statutory arrangement (involving a business combination) or merger of the Borrower or the Acquisition Corp. (1) in which the Borrower or the Acquisition Corp. is not the continuing or surviving corporation or (2) pursuant to which any Voting Shares would be reclassified, changed or converted into or exchanged for cash, securities or other property, other than (in each case) an amalgamation, consolidation, statutory arrangement or merger of the Borrower in which the holders of the Voting Shares immediately prior to the amalgamation, consolidation, statutory arrangement or merger have, directly or indirectly, more than 80% of the Voting Shares of the continuing or surviving corporation immediately after such transaction; or |
(c) | occupation of a majority of the seats (other than vacant seats) on the board of directors of the Borrower or, after the Acquisition Transaction, of the Acquisition Corp. by Persons who were neither (x) nominated by the board of directors of the Borrower nor (y) appointed or approved by directors so nominated; |
- 4 - |
“Closing Date” means the First Tranche Closing Date, the Second Tranche Closing Date or the Third Tranche Closing Date(s), as applicable;
“Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
“Commitment” means the aggregate principal amount of up to $110,000,000 (excluding capitalized interest, if any), which the Lender has agreed to make available to the Borrower in accordance with and subject to the terms of this Agreement;
“Common Stock” means the shares of common stock in the capital of the Acquisition Corp. as such shares exist on the First Tranche Closing Date;
“Compliance Certificate” means a certificate in the form attached as Schedule F;
“Constating Documents” means (i) with respect to a corporation, its certificate of incorporation or other similar documents by which it is established under its governing corporate legislation as a corporation, and its by-laws, if any, and (ii) with respect to any other Person which is an artificial body other than a corporation, the organization and governance documents of such Person; in each case as amended and supplemented from time to time;
“Contingent Liabilities” means, with respect to a Person, any agreement, undertaking or arrangement by which the Person guarantees, endorses or otherwise becomes or is contingently liable upon (by direct or indirect agreement, contingent or otherwise, to provide funds for payment, to supply funds to, or otherwise to invest in a debtor, or otherwise to assure a creditor against loss) the obligation, debt or other liability of any other Person or guarantees the payment of dividends or other distributions upon the shares of any Person. The amount of any Contingent Liability will, subject to any limitation contained therein, be deemed to be the outstanding principal amount (or maximum principal amount, if larger) of the obligation, debt or other liability to which the Contingent Liability is related;
“Control” of any Person means:
(a) | the power (whether by way of ownership of shares, proxy, contract, agency or otherwise) to: |
(i) | cast, or control the casting of, more than 50% of the maximum number of votes that might be cast at a general meeting of such Person; or |
(ii) | appoint or remove all, or the majority, of the directors or other equivalent officers of such Person; or |
(iii) | give directions with respect to the operating and financial policies of such Person with which the directors or other equivalent officers of such Person are obliged to comply; and/or |
(b) | the holding beneficially of more than 50% of the issued share capital of such Person; |
“Credit Parties” means collectively, the Borrower and the Guarantors, and “Credit Party” means any one of them;
- 5 - |
“Crofoot Royalty” means the 4% net profit interest royalty retained by the original owners of the Crofoot property granted pursuant to the Fourth Amendment Agreement dated January 1, 1996 between Daniel M. Crofoot, for himself and as trustee, BlackRock Properties, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Hycroft Resources, which is payable to a maximum of $7,600,000, of which $5,110,153 is outstanding as of the date of this Agreement;
“Current Assets” means, at any time, all current assets on the consolidated balance sheet of the Borrower, less an amount equal to the recorded book value of 50% of the estimated gold and silver inventory classified as current assets on the heap leach pads at the time of such calculation, each as determined from time to time in accordance with U.S. GAAP;
“Current Liabilities” means, at any time, all current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet of the Borrower, less the current portion of the outstanding Facility Indebtedness classified as current liabilities on the Borrower’s balance sheet, each as determined from time to time in accordance with U.S. GAAP;
“Damage Event” has the meaning attributed to the term in Section 10.1;
“Default” means an Event of Default or any event or circumstance specified in Section 9.1 which would (with the expiry of a grace period, the giving of notice, the making of any determination or any combination of any of the foregoing) be an Event of Default;
“Director” means a director of the Borrower for the time being and “Directors” means the board of directors of the Borrower or, whenever duly empowered, a committee of the board of directors of the Borrower, and reference to action by the Directors means action by the directors as a board or action by such a committee of the board as a committee;
“Disclosure Record” means all proxy statements, prospectuses (including preliminary prospectuses), annual, quarterly and periodic reports, offering memoranda, financial statements, and news releases filed by the Borrower with the Exchange and the SEC during the 12 months immediately preceding the date on which any representation is made herein with respect to such disclosure record;
“Distribution” includes with respect to any Credit Party (i) any dividend or other distribution on issued shares or any other Equity Interest of such Credit Party, other than any dividend or other distribution on issued shares paid by one Credit Party to another Credit Party, (ii) any purchase, redemption or retirement of any issued share, warrant or other Equity Interest or any other option or right to purchase, redeem or retire any share or other Equity Interest of such Credit Party or (iii) any payment whether as consulting fees, management fees or other similar type payments to any Related Party of such Credit Party, other than payments made in the ordinary course of business at fair market value, consistent with past practice;
“EDGAR” means the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval online public database maintained by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission;
“Encumbrance” means, with respect to any Person, any mortgage, debenture, pledge, hypothec, lien, charge, claim, deed of trust, royalty, assignment by way of security, hypothecation, security interest, conditional sales agreement, lease or title retention agreement or other encumbrance, granted or permitted by such Person or arising by operation of law, in respect of any of such Person’s property, or any consignment by way of security or finance lease of property by such Person or consignee or lessee, as the case may be, or any other security agreement, trust or arrangement having the effect of security for the payment of any debt, liability or other obligation, and “Encumbrances”, “Encumbrancer”, “Encumber” and “Encumbered” have corresponding meanings;
- 6 - |
“Environmental Laws” means all federal, provincial, state, municipal, county, local and other laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, by-laws, rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, certificates, approvals, permits, consents, directions, standards, judgments, orders and other Authorizations, as well as common law, civil law and other jurisprudence or authority, in each case, domestic or foreign, having the force of law at any time relating in whole or in part to any Environmental Matters and any permit, order, direction, certificate, approval, consent, registration, licence or other Authorization of any kind held or required to be held in connection with any Environmental Matters;
“Environmental Matters” means:
(a) | any condition or substance, heat, energy, sound, vibration, radiation or odour that may affect any component of the earth and its surrounding atmosphere or affect human health or any plant, animal or other living organism; and |
(b) | any waste, toxic substance, contaminant or dangerous good or the deposit, release or discharge of any thereof into any component of the earth and its surrounding atmosphere; |
“Equity Financing” means an equity financing in an aggregate amount of not less than $100,000,000, to be completed by the Acquisition Corp. concurrently with the closing of the Acquisition Transaction;
“Equity Interests” means, with respect to any Person, shares in the capital of (or other ownership or profit interests in) such Person, warrants, options or other rights for the purchase or acquisition from such Person of shares in the capital of (or other ownership or profit interests in) such Person, securities convertible into or exchangeable for shares in the capital of (or other ownership or profit interests in) such Person or warrants, rights or options for the purchase or acquisition from such Person of such shares (or such other interests), and all of the other ownership or profit interests in such Person (including, without limitation, partnership, member or trust interests therein), whether voting or non-voting, and whether or not such shares, warrants, options, rights or other interests are outstanding on any date of determination;
“ERISA” means the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974;
“ERISA Affiliate” means any trade or business (whether or not incorporated) under common control with the Borrower within the meaning of section 414(b) or (c) of the Code (and sections 414(m) and (o) of the Code for purposes of provisions relating to section 412 of the Code);
“ERISA Event” means (a) a Reportable Event with respect to a Pension Plan; (b) the withdrawal of the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate from a Pension Plan subject to section 4063 of ERISA during a plan year in which such entity was a “substantial employer” as defined in section 4001(a)(2) of ERISA or a cessation of operations that is treated as such a withdrawal under section 4062(e) of ERISA; (c) a complete or partial withdrawal by the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate from a Multiemployer Plan or notification that a Multiemployer Plan is in reorganization; (d) the filing of a notice of intent to terminate, the treatment of a Pension Plan amendment as a termination under section 4041 or 4041A of ERISA; (e) the institution by the PBGC of proceedings to terminate a Pension Plan; (f) any event or condition which constitutes grounds under section 4042 of ERISA for the termination of, or the appointment of a trustee to administer, any Pension Plan; (g) the determination that any Pension Plan is considered an at-risk plan or a plan in endangered or critical status within the meaning of sections 430, 431 and 432 of the Code or sections 303, 304 and 305 of ERISA; (h) the imposition of any liability under Title IV of ERISA, other than for PBGC premiums due but not delinquent under section 4007 of ERISA, upon the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate; or (i) a failure by the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate to meet all applicable requirements under the Pension Funding Rules in respect of a Pension Plan, whether or not waived, or the failure by the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate to make any required contribution to a Multiemployer Plan;
“Event of Default” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 9.1;
- 7 - |
“Exchange” means either the NASDAQ or the NYSE American on which the Borrower or the Acquisition Corp. will list or will continue to list its shares of Common Stock on or before the First Tranche Closing Date, and each successor thereto;
“Exchange Act” means the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated from time to time thereunder;
“Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes” means the senior secured notes subordinate in priority to the Facility to be issued pursuant to the Note Exchange Agreement, in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $80,000,000 (excluding all PIK Interest accruing thereon and any PIK Notes issued in respect thereof);
“Existing Debt Facilities” means the Indebtedness of the Borrower and/or the other Credit Parties under each of the following agreements or instruments:
(a) | the First Lien Term Loan Credit Agreement originally dated October 22, 2015 as amended to the date hereof and most recently amended on February 22, 2019 among Hycroft Mining Corporation, as borrower, the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Hycroft Mining Corporation party thereto as guarantors, The Bank of Nova Scotia as administrative agent and collateral agent and the several lenders party thereto, in the principal amount of $125,468,436, as of September 30, 2019 (the “BNS Facility”); |
(b) | the Second Lien Senior Secured Convertible Notes due 2020, issued under the Notes Indenture, dated October 22, 2015, among Hycroft Mining Corporation, as borrower, the guarantors party thereto, the purchasers party thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee, in the aggregate principal amount of $200,878,563, as of September 30, 2019 (the “Second Lien Notes”); |
(c) | the 1.5 Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2020 issued pursuant to a note purchase agreement, among Hycroft Mining Corporation, as borrower, the purchasers party thereto, the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Hycroft Mining Corporation party thereto as guarantors, WBox 2015-5 Ltd. as collateral agent and the several lenders party thereto, in the aggregate principal amount of $132,096,256, as of September 30, 2019 (the “1.5 Lien Notes”); |
(d) | the Promissory Note dated October 15, 2014 as amended to the date hereof and most recently amended on December 31, 2018, made by Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc., payable to Jacobs Field Services North America Inc., in the principal amount of $6,557,976, as of September 30, 2019 (the “Jacobs Note”); and |
(e) | the 1.25 Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2019 issued pursuant to note purchase agreements, among Hycroft Mining Corporation, as borrower, the purchasers party thereto, the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Hycroft Mining Corporation party thereto as guarantors, WBox 2015-5 Ltd. as collateral agent and the several lenders party thereto, in the aggregate principal amount of $54,744,227, as of September 30, 2019, which shall be exchanged for the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes on the closing of the Acquisition Transaction (the “1.25 Lien Notes”); |
“Facility” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 2.1;
“Facility Documents” means this Agreement, the Security Documents, the Guarantees and all other agreements, certificates, instruments, notices and documents delivered or to be delivered by the Credit Parties hereunder or thereunder but excluding, for avoidance of doubt, the Sprott Royalty, each as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time;
- 8 - |
“Facility Indebtedness” means all present and future debts, liabilities and obligations of the Borrower and the Guarantors to the Lender under and in connection with this Agreement and all other Facility Documents, including all Amounts Payable and all fees and other money payable or owing from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or any of the other Facility Documents;
“Finance Lease” means, with respect to a Person, a lease or other arrangement in respect of personal property that is required to be classified and accounted for as a finance lease obligation on a balance sheet of the Person in accordance with U.S. GAAP;
“Finance Lease Obligation” means, with respect to a Person, the obligation of the Person to pay rent or other amounts under a Finance Lease and for the purposes of this definition, the amount of such obligation at any date shall be the capitalized amount of such obligation at such date as determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP;
“Financial Assistance” means, with respect to any Person, any loan, guarantee, assurance, acceptance, extension of credit, loan purchase, stock purchase, equity or capital contribution, investment or other form of direct or indirect financial assistance or support of any other Person or any obligation (contingent or otherwise), other than, for avoidance of doubt, trade payables incurred in the ordinary course of business;
“Financial Instrument Obligations” means, with respect to any Person, obligations arising under:
(a) | interest rate swap agreements, forward rate agreements, floor, cap or collar agreements, futures or options, insurance or other similar agreements or arrangements, or any combination thereof, entered into or guaranteed by the Person where the subject matter thereof is interest rates or the price, value or amount payable thereunder is dependent or based upon interest rates or fluctuations in interest rates in effect from time to time (but excluding non-speculative conventional floating rate indebtedness); |
(b) | currency swap agreements, cross-currency agreements, forward agreements, floor, cap or collar agreements, futures or options, insurance or other similar agreements or arrangements, or any combination thereof, entered into or guaranteed by the Person where the subject matter thereof is currency exchange rates or the price, value or amount payable thereunder is dependent or based upon currency exchange rates or fluctuations in currency exchange rates in effect from time to time; and |
(c) | any agreement for the making or taking of any commodity (including gold, silver, coal, natural gas, oil and electricity), swap agreement, floor, cap or collar agreement or commodity future or option or other similar agreement or arrangement, or any combination thereof, entered into or guaranteed by the Person where the subject matter thereof is any commodity or the price, value or amount payable thereunder is dependent or based upon the price or fluctuations in the price of any commodity; |
or any other similar transaction, including any option to enter into any of the foregoing, or any combination of the foregoing, in each case to the extent of the net amount due or accruing due by the Person under the obligations determined by marking the obligations to market in accordance with their terms in accordance with U.S. GAAP;
“First Tranche” means $55,000,000 of the principal amount of the Facility to be advanced to the Borrower by way of a single Advance as contemplated herein;
“First Tranche Advance” means the Advance of the First Tranche;
- 9 - |
“First Tranche Closing Date” means the closing date of the First Tranche Advance, to be made on such date as the Lender and the Borrower may agree in writing, which shall be no later than April 15, 2020;
“First Tranche Original Issue Discount” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 2.11;
“Fiscal Quarter” means the three month period ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31, of each year;
“Foreign Government Scheme or Arrangement” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 7.1(u);
“Foreign Plan” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 7.1(u);
“Fourth Anniversary” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 4.7(b);
“Governmental Authority” means each federal, state, provincial, county, municipal or other such governmental or public authority, including their authorized administrative bodies, courts, tribunals, commissions and agents, which have legal jurisdiction over a Person or a matter relevant to this Agreement;
“Guarantees” means the guarantees to be provided by the Guarantors in connection with the Facility, as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time;
“Guarantors” means, collectively, Hycroft Resources and Allied VGH, and their respective successors and permitted assigns and each entity that becomes a Guarantor by virtue of Section 8.1(x), and “Guarantor” means any one of them;
“Hazardous Materials” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 7.1(ff);
“Indebtedness” means, with respect to a Person, without duplication:
(a) | all obligations of the Person for borrowed money, including debentures, notes or similar instruments and other financial instruments and obligations with respect to bankers’ acceptances and contingent reimbursement obligations relating to letters of credit; |
(b) | all Financial Instrument Obligations of the Person; |
(c) | all Finance Lease Obligations and Purchase Money Obligations of the Person; |
(d) | all obligations to pay the deferred and unpaid purchase price of property or services, which purchase price is due and payable more than six months after the date of placing such property or service or taking delivery at the completion of such services; |
(e) | all indebtedness of any other Person secured by an Encumbrance on any asset of the Person; |
(f) | all obligations to repurchase, redeem or repay any issued shares of such Person that fall due prior to the Maturity Date; and |
(g) | all Contingent Liabilities of the Person with respect to obligations of another Person if such obligations are of the type referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) above; |
“Indemnified Parties” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 12.1(a);
- 10 - |
“Interest Payment Date” has the meaning attributed to the term in Section 2.7;
“Interest Period” means, initially, the period commencing on the First Tranche Closing Date and ending on the last day of the calendar month in which the First Tranche Advance is made, and thereafter each successive calendar month; provided that any Interest Period which would otherwise end on a day which is not a London Banking Day shall be extended to end on the next London Banking Day, unless that next London Banking Day falls in the next calendar month, in which case that Interest Period shall be shortened to end on the preceding London Banking Day;
“Lender” means Sprott Private Resource Lending II (Collector), LP, an Ontario limited partnership, and every successor Person thereto and assignee;
“Lender’s Counsel” means DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and, at any time, any other legal counsel retained by the Lender in the relevant jurisdiction to the matter in question;
“LIBOR” means, in respect of an Interest Period, the rate of interest expressed as a percentage per annum on the basis of a 360 day year for deposits in U.S. Dollars in the London interbank market for a period equal to three (3) months that appears on the Reuters LIBOR 01 Page or the ICE Benchmark Administration (or any successor source from time to time) as of 11:00 a.m. (London time) on the first day of the relevant Interest Period;
“London Banking Day” means a day on which dealings in U.S. Dollar deposits by and between banks may be transacted in the London interbank market;
“Material Adverse Effect” means, when used with reference to any event or circumstance, any event or circumstance which has, had, or could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on:
(a) | the business, operations, results of operations, assets, liabilities (contingent or otherwise), condition (financial or otherwise) or cash flows of the Credit Parties; |
(b) | the ability of the Credit Parties or any of them to perform their obligations when due under this Agreement or any of the other Facility Documents; |
(c) | the validity or enforceability of this Agreement or any other Facility Document; or |
(d) | the priority or ranking of any Encumbrance granted pursuant to any of the Security Documents or any of the rights or remedies of the Lender thereunder or under any other Facility Document; |
in each case as reasonably determined by the Lender;
“Material Contract” means any Project Document which (i) is prudent or necessary for the operation and development of the Project in accordance with the Model or (ii) contains terms and conditions which, if amended or, upon breach, termination, non-renewal or non-performance, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, as more particularly described on Schedule D hereto;
“Maturity Date” means the day that is five years from the last day of the month of the First Tranche Closing Date;
“Model” means a financial model containing the Project mining plan and related financial projections, along with the Borrower’s financial forecast for all other revenues, costs and expenses and financings, to be incurred by the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries, in a form and substance acceptable to the Lender, acting reasonably, as delivered and accepted by the Lender on or before the First Tranche Closing Date, as updated from time to time as contemplated herein;
- 11 - |
“Multiemployer Plan” means any employee benefit plan of the type described in section 4001(a)(3) of ERISA, to which the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate makes or is obligated to make contributions, or during the preceding five plan years, has made or been obligated to make contributions;
“Multiple Employer Plan” means a Plan which has two or more contributing sponsors (including the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate) at least two of whom are not under common control, as such a plan is described in section 4064 of ERISA;
“Note Exchange Agreement” means the note exchange agreement entered into by and among, inter alios, Hycroft Mining Corporation, each of its direct and indirect subsidiary corporations, and WBox 2015-5 Ltd., in form and on terms satisfactory to the Lender, all as described in Schedule K hereto;
“Original Issue Discount” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 2.12.
“Partner Alignment Shares” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 3.1;
“PBGC” means the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
“Pension Act” means the Pension Protection Act of 2006;
“Pension Funding Rules” means the rules of the Code and ERISA regarding minimum required contributions (including any installment payment thereof) to Pension Plans and set forth in, with respect to plan years ending prior to the effective date of the Pension Act, section 412 of the Code and section 302 of ERISA, each as in effect prior to the Pension Act and, thereafter, section 412, 430, 431, 432 and 436 of the Code and sections 302, 303, 304 and 305 of ERISA;
“Pension Plan” means any employee pension benefit plan (including a Multiple Employer Plan or a Multiemployer Plan) that is maintained or is contributed to by the Borrower and any ERISA Affiliate and is either covered by Title IV of ERISA or is subject to the minimum funding standards under section 412 of the Code;
“Permitted Disposal” means any sale, lease, license, transfer or other disposal:
(a) | of inventory in the ordinary course of business; |
(b) | made by a Credit Party to another Credit Party, provided that if the disposing Credit Party had granted an Encumbrance in favour of the Lender over the asset or property subject to such disposal, equivalent security over such asset or property shall be granted in favour of the Lender by the acquiring Credit Party, in each case, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Lender, acting reasonably; |
(c) | of fixed assets where the proceeds of disposal are used to purchase replacement assets comparable or superior as to type, value and quality; |
(d) | of the mill assets located in Houston, Texas and the related motors located in Las Vegas, Nevada, provided that they are disposed of for cash at fair market value to an arm’s length bona fide purchaser; |
(e) | of obsolete or redundant vehicles, plant and equipment for cash; |
(f) | of assets (other than shares of common stock) for cash where the consideration receivable when aggregated with the consideration receivable for any other sale, lease, license, transfer or disposal not allowed under paragraphs (a) to (e) above does not exceed $250,000; and |
(g) | made with the prior written consent of the Lender; |
- 12 - |
“Permitted Encumbrances” means with respect to any Credit Party:
(a) | any Encumbrance granted pursuant to the Security Documents; |
(b) | up to the First Tranche Closing Date but not thereafter, any Encumbrance granted by the Borrower securing Indebtedness under or in respect of the Existing Debt Facilities; |
(c) | any Encumbrance or deposit under workers’ compensation, social security, ERISA, or similar legislation or in connection with bids, tenders, leases or contracts or to secure related public or statutory obligations, surety and appeal bonds where required by law; |
(d) | any builders’, mechanics’, materialman’s, carriers’, warehousemen’s and landlords’ liens and privileges, in each case, which relate to obligations not yet due or delinquent; |
(e) | any Encumbrance for Taxes, assessments, unpaid wages or governmental charges or levies for the then current year and not at the time due and delinquent; |
(f) | any right reserved to or vested in any Governmental Authority by the terms of any lease, licence, franchise, grant, claim or permit held or acquired by any Credit Party, or by any statutory provision, to terminate the lease, licence, franchise, grant, claim or permit or to purchase assets used in connection therewith or to require annual or other periodic payments as a condition of the continuance thereof; |
(g) | any Encumbrance created or assumed by any Credit Party in favour of a public utility or Governmental Authority when required by the utility or Governmental Authority in connection with the operations of such Credit Party that do not in the aggregate detract from the value of any of the Secured Assets or impair their use in the operation of the business of such Credit Party; |
(h) | any reservations, limitations, provisos and conditions expressed in original grants from any Governmental Authority; |
(i) | any applicable municipal and other Governmental Authority restrictions affecting the use of land or the nature of any structures which may be erected thereon, any minor encumbrance, such as easements, rights-of-way, servitudes or other similar rights in land granted to or reserved by other Persons, rights-of-way for sewers, electric lines, telegraph and telephone lines, oil and natural gas pipelines and other similar purposes, or zoning or other restrictions applicable to the use of real property by any Credit Party, or title defects, encroachments or irregularities, that do not materially detract from the value of the property or impair its use in the operation of the business of any Credit Party; |
(j) | any Encumbrances that secure Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes, provided that such Encumbrances shall be fully subordinated and subject to the intercreditor agreement referred to in such Subsection (d) of the definition of Permitted Indebtedness; |
(k) | any Encumbrances that secure Permitted Indebtedness referred to under Subsection (i) of the definition of Permitted Indebtedness, provided that such Encumbrances are limited to the mobile equipment which was acquired with the proceeds of such Permitted Indebtedness; |
(l) | any Royalty Obligations, including any Encumbrance securing the Sprott Royalty; |
(m) | any Encumbrance on cash in respect of reclamation obligations or other bonding obligations required by Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority; and |
(n) | any other Encumbrance consented to in writing by the Lender; |
- 13 - |
“Permitted Indebtedness” means:
(a) | Indebtedness under this Agreement and any other Facility Documents; |
(b) | up to the First Tranche Closing Date but not thereafter, any Indebtedness in respect of the Existing Debt Facilities; |
(c) | Indebtedness comprised of amounts owed to trade creditors and accruals in the ordinary course of business, which are either not overdue or, if disputed and in that case whether or not overdue, are being contested in good faith by such Credit Party by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted, and provided always that: (i) the failure to pay such Indebtedness could not be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect and (ii) the aggregate amount of such Indebtedness does not exceed $1,000,000; |
(d) | any Indebtedness owed in respect of Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $80,000,000 as of the date of the exchange, which shall be subject to the terms of an intercreditor agreement in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender, providing for the full subordination and postponement of all such indebtedness (but permitting payments of PIK Interest by way of the issuance of PIK Notes thereunder) and any security therefor to the Facility Indebtedness and the repayment in full thereof and the Encumbrances granted under the Security Documents, executed and delivered in favour of the Lender (“Subordinated Indebtedness”); |
(e) | any unsecured inter-company Indebtedness between any Credit Parties (other than, for avoidance of doubt, trade payables incurred in the ordinary course of business); |
(f) | any Contingent Liability in respect of Permitted Indebtedness; |
(g) | any other Indebtedness which the Lender agrees in writing is Permitted Indebtedness for the purposes of this Agreement; |
(h) | any unsecured Indebtedness arising under a foreign exchange transaction for spot or forward delivery entered into in connection with protection against fluctuation in currency rates or Financial Instrument Obligation (and not a foreign exchange transaction for investment or speculative purposes), which Indebtedness does not exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate for the Credit Parties at any time; |
(i) | any Indebtedness under Finance Leases and Purchase Money Obligations in respect of mobile equipment acquired for use in respect of the Project, which Indebtedness does not exceed $75,000,000 in the aggregate for the Credit Parties at any time; |
(j) | any Indebtedness not permitted by the preceding paragraphs (a) to (i) and the outstanding amount of which does not exceed $1,000,000 in aggregate for the Credit Parties at any time; |
(k) | Royalty Obligations, payable in accordance with their terms; and |
(l) | any Indebtedness in respect of reclamation or other bonding obligations required by Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority in respect of the Project; |
- 14 - |
“Person” means any individual, partnership, limited partnership, joint venture, syndicate, sole proprietorship, or corporation with or without share capital, body corporate, unincorporated association, trust, trustee, executor, administrator or other legal personal representative, government or Governmental Authority or entity, however designated or constituted;
“PIK Interest” has the meaning attributed to that term in the Note Exchange Agreement;
“PIK Notes” has the meaning attributed to that term in the Note Exchange Agreement;
“Plan” means any employee benefit plan within the meaning of section 3(3) of ERISA (including a Pension Plan), maintained for employees of the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate or any such Plan to which the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate is required to contribute on behalf of any of its employees;
“Prepayment Premium” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 4.7;
“Project” means the Hycroft gold and silver mine project, as more particularly described on Schedule A;
“Project Consultant” means any project consultant appointed by the Lender, in consultation with the Borrower;
“Project Document” means any agreement, contract, license, permit, instrument, lease, easement or other document which (i) deals with or is related to the construction, operation or development of the Project, and (ii) is executed from time to time by or on behalf of or is otherwise made or issued in favour of any Credit Party;
“Project Repayment Covenant” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 8.1(r);
“Purchase Agreement” means the purchase agreement to be entered into by and among, inter alios, Acquisition Corp. and Hycroft Mining Corporation, in form and on terms satisfactory to the Lender, all as described in Schedule K hereto ;
“Purchase Money Obligation” means, with respect to a Person, Indebtedness of the Person issued, incurred or assumed to finance all or part of the cost of acquiring any mobile asset;
“Related Party” means, in respect of any Credit Party, (a) a Person which alone or in combination with others holds a number of securities or other Equity Interests, or has contractual rights, sufficient to affect the Control of such Credit Party, (b) a Person who beneficially owns, directly or indirectly, voting securities of such Credit Party or who exercises control or direction over voting securities of such Credit Party or a combination of both carrying more than 10% of the voting rights attached to all voting securities of such Credit Party for the time being outstanding, (c) a director or senior officer of a Credit Party or Related Party of any Credit Party, or (d) an Affiliate of any of the foregoing;
“Reportable Event” means any of the events set forth in section 4043(c) of ERISA, other than events for which the 30 day notice period has been waived;
“Relevant Jurisdiction” means, from time to time, any jurisdiction in which any Credit Party has any material properties or assets, or in which it carries on business and, for the purposes of this Agreement, includes (i) Nevada, (ii) Colorado, and (iii) following the date of the Acquisition Transaction, Delaware;
- 15 - |
“Restricted Assignee” means those Persons set out in the side letter between the Lender and the Borrower dated as of the date of this Agreement (as the same may be amended, restated or otherwise replaced from time to time);
“Royalty Obligations” means:
(a) | Crofoot Royalty; and |
(b) | the Sprott Royalty and all security therefor; |
“Sanctions” means sanctions administered or enforced from time to time by the U.S. government (including those administered by OFAC or the U.S. Department of State), the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, Her Majesty’s Treasury or other relevant sanctions authority;
“SEC” means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission;
“Second Anniversary” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section 4.7(a);
“Second Tranche” means $15,000,000 of the principal amount of the Facility to be advanced to the Borrower by way of a single Advance subsequent to the First Tranche Advance and as contemplated herein;
“Second Tranche Advance” means the Advance of the Second Tranche;
“Second Tranche Closing Date” means the closing date of the Second Tranche Advance;
“Secured Assets” means the undertaking, properties and assets now owned, leased or hereafter acquired or leased by the Credit Parties or any of them, which shall be secured by the Security Documents;
“Securities Act” means the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated from time to time thereunder;
“Security Documents” means, collectively, the agreements, instruments and documents listed in Schedule B hereto and delivered pursuant to Article 5 of this Agreement, as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time;
“SPRL II” means Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc., an Ontario corporation;
“Sprott Royalty” means the secured net smelter returns royalty to be granted by the Borrower and Hycroft Resources in favour of Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc. concurrently with the closing of the First Tranche Advance, in the form attached as Schedule H hereto, as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented, modified or otherwise replaced from time to time;
“Subordinated Indebtedness” has the meaning attributed to such term in Section (d) of the definition of Permitted Indebtedness;
“Subsequent Tranche Advances” means collectively, all Advances in respect of the Second Tranche and the Third Tranche;
“Subsidiary” means with respect to any Person (the “parent”) at any date, (i) any corporation, limited liability company, association or other business entity which the parent and/or one or more subsidiaries of the parent Controls, (ii) any partnership, (x) the sole general partner or the managing general partner of which is the parent and/or one or more subsidiaries of the parent or (y) the only general partners of which are the parent and/or one or more subsidiaries of the parent and (iii) any other Person that is otherwise Controlled by the parent and/or one or more subsidiaries of the parent;
- 16 - |
“Taxes” means all taxes, assessments, rates, levies, royalties, imposts, deductions, withholdings, dues, duties, fees and other charges of any nature, including any interest, fines, penalties or other liabilities with respect thereto, imposed, levied, collected, withheld or assessed by any Governmental Authority (of any jurisdiction), and whether disputed or not;
“Term Sheet” means the indicative term sheet dated April 15, 2019 issued by the Lender to and accepted by the Borrower, as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time;
“Third Tranche” means $40,000,000 of the principal amount of the Facility to be advanced to the Borrower by way of not more than two Advances subsequent to the Second Tranche Advance and as contemplated herein;
“Third Tranche Advance” means any Advance of the Third Tranche, as applicable;
“Third Tranche Closing Dates” means the closing date(s) of the Third Tranche Advance(s), as applicable;
“Unrestricted Cash” means, at any time, cash denominated in CAD$ or $ at a bank and credited to an account in the name of the Borrower or any Credit Party with an account bank satisfactory to the Lender, and to which the Borrower or any Credit Party is alone beneficially entitled, provided that:
(a) | such cash is repayable on demand; |
(b) | the repayment of such cash is not contingent on the prior discharge of any Indebtedness of any Person whatsoever or on the satisfaction of any other condition; |
(c) | there is no Encumbrance over such cash or account (other than an Encumbrance in favour of the Lender pursuant to the Security Documents or a Permitted Encumbrance that is subordinate to the Encumbrance in favour of the Lender); and |
(d) | such cash is freely and immediately available to the Borrower; |
“Updated Project Feasibility Study” means the updated project feasibility study in respect of the Project dated July 31, 2019 and delivered to the Lender in August 2019;
“U.S. GAAP” means generally accepted accounting principles as in effect from time to time in the United States, applied in a manner consistent with that used in preparing the financial statements referred to in Section 7.1(bb);
“Voting Shares” means shares of capital stock of any class of the Borrower, or after the Acquisition Transaction of the Acquisition Corp., carrying voting rights under all circumstances, provided that for the purposes of such definition, shares which only carry the right to vote conditionally on the happening of any event shall not be considered Voting Shares, whether or not such event shall have occurred, nor shall any shares be deemed to cease to be Voting Shares solely by reason of a right to vote accruing to shares of another class or classes by reason of the happening of such event; and
“Working Capital” means Current Assets less Current Liabilities.
- 17 - |
Interpretation Not Affected by Headings
1.2 | The division of this Agreement into articles, sections, subsections and paragraphs, the provision of a table of contents and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. |
Statute References
1.3 | Any reference in this Agreement to a statute shall be deemed to be a reference to such statute as amended, re-enacted or replaced from time to time. |
Permitted Encumbrance
1.4 | Any reference in any of the Facility Documents to a Permitted Encumbrance is not intended to and shall not be interpreted as subordinating or postponing, or as any agreement to subordinate or postpone, any obligation of any Credit Party to the Lender under any of the Facility Documents, or any security therefor, to such Permitted Encumbrance. |
Currency
1.5 | Any reference in this Agreement to “Dollars”, “dollars” or “$” shall be deemed to be a reference to lawful money of the United States of America and any reference to any payments to be made by any Credit Party shall be deemed to be a reference to payments made in lawful money of the United States of America. Any reference in this Agreement to “CAD$” shall be deemed to be a reference to lawful money of Canada. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement or in any other Facility Document, the equivalent on any given date in one currency of an amount denominated in another currency is a reference to the amount of the first currency which could be purchased with the amount of the second currency at the screen rate published on Reuters or any substitute or successor of such service selected by the Lender or, if not available, the spot rate of exchange quoted to the Lender in the ordinary course of business at or about 11:00 a.m. (Toronto time) on such date for the purchase of the first currency with the second currency. |
Use of the Words “Best Knowledge”, "continuing" and "indebtedness"
1.6 | The words “best knowledge”, “to the best of the Borrower’s knowledge”, “to the knowledge of”, “of which they are aware”, “any knowledge of” or other similar expressions limiting the scope of any representation, warranty, acknowledgement, covenant or statement by the Borrower or the Credit Parties will be understood to be made on the basis of the actual knowledge of any of the senior officers of the Borrower or other Credit Party, in each case, after due and diligent inquiry. |
1.7 | A Default (other than an Event of Default) being “continuing” means that such Default has not been remedied to the Lender’s satisfaction or waived by the Lender and an Event of Default being “continuing” means that such Event of Default has not been waived by the Lender. |
1.8 | Any reference to “indebtedness” includes any obligation (whether incurred as principal or as surety) for the payment or repayment of money, whether present or future, actual or contingent. |
Non-Business Days
1.9 | Whenever any payment to be made hereunder shall be due, any period of time would begin or end, any calculation is to be made or any other action is to be taken on or as of, a day other than a Business Day, such payment shall be made, such period of time shall begin or end, such calculation shall be made and such other actions shall be taken, as the case may be, unless otherwise specifically provided for herein, on or as of the next succeeding Business Day and the Lender shall be entitled to all additional accrued interest or other applicable payment in respect of such delay. |
- 18 - |
Governing Law
1.10 | This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein and shall be treated in all respects as an Ontario contract. Each of the Credit Parties hereby irrevocably attorns to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Province of Ontario in the City of Toronto. Each Credit Party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives, to the fullest extent it may legally and effectively do so, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement in any Court of the Province of Ontario. Each of the Credit Parties hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any forum non conveniens defence to the maintenance of such action or proceeding in any such court. Each Credit Party irrevocably consents to service of process in Ontario. Nothing in this Agreement will affect the right of the Lender to serve process in any other manner or in any other jurisdiction permitted by law or to commence suits, actions or legal proceedings in any other jurisdictions. |
Paramountcy
1.11 | Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any Facility Document, in the event of a conflict or any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any other Facility Document, the applicable provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and govern. |
Enurement
1.12 | The Facility Documents shall be binding upon and shall enure to the benefit of the Credit Parties and the Lender and their respective successors and permitted assigns. |
Interpretation
1.13 | In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa and words importing gender include all genders. In this Agreement the words “including” or “includes” mean “including without limitation” and “includes without limitation”, respectively. |
Time of Essence
1.14 | Time shall be of the essence in all respects in this Agreement. |
Accounting Terms
1.15 | All accounting terms not specifically defined herein shall be construed, and resulting calculations and determination made, in accordance with U.S. GAAP. |
Schedules
1.16 | The Schedules listed below are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and are deemed to be an integral part thereof: |
Schedule A - Project
Schedule B - Security Documents
Schedule C - Shares and Ownership Interests
Schedule D - Material Contracts
Schedule E - Authorizations to be obtained on or prior to Advances
Schedule F - Compliance Certificate
Schedule G - [Intentionally Deleted]
Schedule H - Form of Sprott Royalty
Schedule I – Insolvency Proceedings
Schedule J - Interest of Directors and Officers
- 19 - |
Article 2
THE FACILITy
The Facility
2.1 | Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Lender hereby establishes in favour of the Borrower, a senior secured multi-advance reducing term credit facility (the “Facility”) in an amount equal to the Commitment amount, which shall be made available to the Borrower, or as the Borrower may direct, by way of one or more Advances made in accordance with this Agreement. |
Non-Revolvement
2.2 | The Facility is a non-revolving facility, and any repayment or prepayment of the Facility shall not be re-borrowed. No amount cancelled under the Facility may be subsequently reinstated. |
2.3 | The Commitment with respect to each Advance shall automatically reduce to zero on the last day of the applicable Availability Period unless cancelled, reduced, terminated earlier or extended in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. |
Notice of Borrowing
2.4 | The Borrower shall provide a notice of borrowing to the Lender in respect of each Advance no later than 12:00 p.m. (Toronto time) not less than 15 Business Days prior to the requested drawdown date (except in respect of the First Tranche Advance, which shall be not less than five Business Days prior to the requested drawdown date). The notice of borrowing shall be in form and on terms satisfactory to the Lender and shall be irrevocable (a “Borrowing Notice”). Prior to the issuance of a Borrowing Notice for the First Tranche Advance, the Borrower shall have satisfied or fulfilled all conditions precedent set out in Section 6.1 and provided to the Lender all documentation contemplated therein, and the Lender shall have confirmed to the Borrower in writing the satisfaction and fulfillment of the conditions precedent set out in Section 6.1 and the Lender’s satisfaction with all documentation delivered in connection therewith. Prior to the issuance of a Borrowing Notice for the Second Tranche Advance, the Borrower shall have satisfied or fulfilled all conditions precedent set out in Section 6.3 and provided to the Lender all documentation contemplated therein, and the Lender shall have confirmed to the Borrower in writing the satisfaction and fulfillment of the conditions precedent set out in Section 6.3 and the Lender’s satisfaction with all documentation delivered in connection therewith. Prior to the issuance of a Borrowing Notice for any Third Tranche Advance, the Borrower shall have satisfied or fulfilled all conditions precedent set out in Section 6.5 and provided to the Lender all documentation contemplated therein, and the Lender shall have confirmed to the Borrower in writing the satisfaction and fulfillment of the conditions precedent set out in Section 6.5 and the Lender’s satisfaction with all documentation delivered in connection therewith. |
Term
2.5 | Except as otherwise provided herein, the outstanding principal amount of the Facility, together with all accrued but unpaid interest and all costs, fees, charges or other amounts payable hereunder from time to time, will be immediately due and payable by the Borrower to the Lender on the Maturity Date. |
- 20 - |
Use of Proceeds
2.6 | Except with the prior written consent of the Lender, the Borrower shall use the proceeds of the Facility only as follows: |
(a) | in repayment of indebtedness and liabilities of the Credit Parties under the BNS Facility, and the Jacobs Note; |
(b) | in payment of the Original Issue Discount payable under Section 2.11 and Section 2.12 on each Closing Date; |
(c) | in payment of the Lender’s fees and expenses payable pursuant to Section 8.4; |
(d) | as to the balance, in payment of costs and expenses to put the Project into commercial production, maintain or increase commercial production, as outlined in and contemplated by the Model (including, to the extent that the Borrower has incurred indebtedness prior to the closing of the First Tranche Advance to place the Project into commercial production, the repayment of such indebtedness from the proceeds of either Advance hereunder shall be permitted); and |
(e) | for such other purposes as the Lender may approve in writing from time to time. |
Interest
2.7 | Interest shall accrue on the outstanding principal amount of the Facility from and including the date of each Advance, as well as on all overdue amounts outstanding in respect of interest, costs or other fees, expenses or other amounts payable under the Facility Documents, in each case at a floating rate equal to 7.00% per annum plus the greater of (i) LIBOR and (ii) 1.50%, per annum, accruing daily, calculated and compounded monthly on the last day of every Interest Period, and be payable on the last Business Day of each Interest Period (each an “Interest Payment Date”) by the Borrower by way of wire transfer, net of all applicable Taxes, as well as after each of maturity, default and judgment. If a rate of interest is not determinable at the relevant time in accordance with the definition of LIBOR, whether by virtue of any disruption, replacement or abandonment of LIBOR or otherwise, the applicable rate of interest for LIBOR as used above for the determination of the applicable rate of interest payable by the Borrower pursuant to this Section 2.7, shall be equal to: (a) if LIBOR has been succeeded by another floating rate index that has a 3 month interest accrual period, is commonly accepted by market participants, and which has begun to be quoted by a recognized reporting service, such alternate index rate as determined by the Lender at approximately 11:00 a.m. (London time) on the first Business Day of the relevant Interest Period, or (b) in any other case, the rate, expressed as a rate of interest per annum on the basis of a year of 360 days, at which deposits in U.S. Dollars are offered by leading prime banks in the London inter-bank market, as determined by the Lender at approximately 11:00 a.m. (London time) on the first Business Day of the relevant Interest Period. |
2.8 | Notwithstanding Section 2.7, all interest calculated during the period commencing on the First Tranche Closing Date and ending on the date which is twelve months after the First Tranche Closing Date, shall be capitalized at the end of each applicable Interest Period and thereafter be added to, and form part of, the outstanding principal amount of the Facility. All interest capitalized under this Section 2.8 shall bear interest at the rate set out in Section 2.7 from the date on which it is capitalized, until paid in full, without duplication. |
Additional Interest
2.9 | In addition to interest calculated and payable under Section 2.7 or elsewhere in this Agreement, for each calendar quarter (ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 of each year) commencing on October 1, 2020 and ending on the Maturity Date, the Borrower shall pay to the Lender as additional interest (“Additional Interest”) on the last Business Day of each such calendar quarter, with the first Additional Interest payment coming due on December 31, 2020, an amount calculated as follows: |
- 21 - |
Each quarterly Additional Interest payment amount = A + (B x (C / D)) |
A = | $432,049 for each quarterly Additional Interest payment |
B = | $432,049 for each quarterly Additional Interest payment |
C = | the aggregate principal amount of all Subsequent Tranche Advances made on or before December 31, 2020 |
D = | $55,000,000 |
2.10 | On any prepayment of the outstanding balance of the Facility and concurrently therewith, whether such prepayment is voluntary or mandatory (including for certainty, upon any acceleration of Facility Indebtedness pursuant to Section 9.2), the Borrower shall prepay all remaining unpaid Additional Interest payment amounts calculated under Section 2.9 to and including the Maturity Date. |
Original Issue Discount
2.11 | The First Tranche Advance shall be made to the Borrower at an original issue discount of 2% of the principal amount of the First Tranche (for greater certainty, being $1,100,000), which original issue discount shall not be credited against the interest payable pursuant to Section 2.7, but shall constitute additional interest paid in advance, which additional interest represents an annual interest rate for the purposes of the Interest Act (Canada) on such First Tranche Advance equal to 2% divided by the number of days from the First Tranche Closing Date to the Maturity Date, multiplied by 365 (“First Tranche Original Issue Discount”). |
2.12 | Each Subsequent Tranche Advance shall be made to the Borrower at an original issue discount of 2% of the principal amount of each Subsequent Tranche Advance, which original issue discount shall not be credited against the interest payable pursuant to Section 2.7, but shall constitute additional interest paid in advance, which additional interest represents an annual interest rate for the purposes of the Interest Act (Canada) on each Subsequent Tranche Advance equal to 2% divided by the number of days from the date of such Subsequent Tranche Advance to the Maturity Date, multiplied by 365 (together with the First Tranche Original Issue Discount, the “Original Issue Discount”). |
Computations
2.13 | The rates of interest under this Agreement are nominal rates, and not effective rates or yields. Unless otherwise stated, wherever in this Agreement reference is made to a rate of interest “per annum” or a similar expression is used, such interest shall be calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days for the actual number of days occurring in the period for which any such interest is payable. For the purposes of the Interest Act (Canada) and disclosure thereunder, whenever any interest to be paid hereunder or in connection herewith is to be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year, the yearly rate of interest to which the rate used in such calculation is equivalent is the rate so used multiplied by the actual number of days in the calendar year in which the same is to be ascertained and divided by 360. The principle of deemed reinvestment of interest shall not apply to any interest calculation under this Agreement. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that when LIBOR is used herein as a reference rate and that while such reference rate is based on the three-month LIBOR rate, such rate shall be reset to the prevailing three-month LIBOR rate as of the first day of each Interest Period. |
- 22 - |
2.14 | The Credit Parties acknowledge and confirm that this Agreement and the other Facility Documents, and all provisions relating to interest and other amounts payable hereunder or thereunder, satisfies the requirements of section 4 of the Interest Act (Canada) to the extent that section 4 of the Interest Act (Canada) applies to the expression, statement or calculation of any rate of interest or other rate per annum hereunder or thereunder; and the Credit Parties are each able to calculate the yearly rate or percentage of interest payable under this Agreement and any other Facility Document based on the methodology set out herein and therein. The Credit Parties hereby irrevocably agree not to, and agree to cause each of their Subsidiaries not to, plead or assert, whether by way of defense or otherwise, in any proceeding relating to this Agreement or any other Facility Document, that the interest payable thereunder and the calculation thereof has not been adequately disclosed to the Credit Parties or any Subsidiary thereof, whether pursuant to section 4 of the Interest Act (Canada) or any other applicable law or legal principle. |
No Set-off
2.15 | All payments required to be made by the Borrower or any other Credit Party pursuant to the provisions hereof or any other Facility Document shall be made in immediately available funds and without any set-off, deduction, withholding or counter-claim or cross-claim. |
Time and Place of Payments
2.16 | All payments made by the Borrower pursuant to this Agreement or pursuant to any other Facility Document shall be made before 2:00 p.m. (Toronto, Ontario time) on the day specified for payment. Any payment received after 2:00 p.m. (Toronto, Ontario time) on the day specified for such payment shall be deemed to have been received before 2:00 p.m. (Toronto, Ontario time) on the immediately following Business Day. All payments shall be made to the Lender to the account and office of the Lender, as specified by the Lender (and, in the case of the office, in Section 11.2), or such other account or office as the Lender may designate in writing. If the date for payment of any Amount Payable is not a Business Day at the place of payment, then payment shall be made on the next Business Day at such place. |
Record of Payments
2.17 | The Lender shall maintain accounts and records evidencing all payments hereunder, which accounts and records shall constitute, in the absence of manifest error, prima facie evidence thereof. |
Article 3
SHARE PURCHASE RIGHT
Partner Alignment Shares
3.1 | Effective as of the First Tranche Closing Date, the Borrower grants to the Lender the right to subscribe for and purchase shares of Common Stock issued from treasury (the “Partner Alignment Shares”). The maximum number of Partner Alignment Shares to be subscribed for by the Lender pursuant to this Section 3.1 shall be an amount equal to one percent (1.00%) of the Borrower’s total issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock as of the date of the Acquisition Transaction after giving effect to the closing of the Equity Financing. The aggregate subscription price of the Partner Alignment Shares shall be $1.00. The Lender may subscribe for the Partner Alignment Shares concurrently with the First Tranche Advance. The Partner Alignment Shares shall be registered in the name of the Lender, or as the Lender may direct, and shall be subject to a hold period under Applicable Securities Legislation of not more than six months from their date of issue and an indefinite hold period in Canada under applicable Canadian securities law, subject to certain exceptions. |
- 23 - |
3.2 | Prior to the issuance of the Partner Alignment Shares to the Lender as contemplated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the Lender agrees that it shall provide to the Borrower such certificates and additional information relating to the Lender as the Borrower may reasonably request, including without limitation a certificate regarding the Lender’s status as an “accredited investor” within the meaning of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions and section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Regulation D promulgated thereunder, to permit the Borrower to issue the Partner Alignment Shares in compliance with applicable Canadian and US securities laws. |
Article 4
rePayment / prePayment
Principal Repayments
4.1 | Commencing on March 31, 2021 (the “First Repayment Date”), and on the last Business Day of each calendar quarter thereafter (ending on March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 of each year), the Borrower shall repay to the Lender the principal amount of the Facility (including all capitalized interest thereon, if any) as follows: |
(a) | in respect of the first four principal repayments coming due under this Section 4.1, the Borrower shall make principal repayments each in an amount equal to 2.50% of the outstanding principal amount of the Facility on March 31, 2021 (including all capitalized interest thereon, if any, but excluding the principal repayment then due) (the “March 2021 Principal Balance”); and |
(b) | in respect of all subsequent principal repayments coming due under this Section 4.1, the Borrower shall make principal repayments each in an amount equal to 7.50% of the March 2021 Principal Balance. |
4.2 | The Borrower shall pay the outstanding principal amount of the Facility (including all capitalized interest thereon, if any) in full on the earlier of the Maturity Date and the date of any acceleration of the Facility pursuant to Section 9.2 (including the applicable Prepayment Premium in the case of any acceleration of the Facility pursuant to Section 9.2). |
Voluntary Prepayment
4.3 | The Borrower may prepay to the Lender the outstanding principal amount of the Facility, in whole or in part, at any time before the Maturity Date. The Borrower shall, in addition to the amount of such prepayment, pay to the Lender an amount equal to the applicable Prepayment Premium as contemplated pursuant to Section 4.7. |
Mandatory Prepayments of the Facility
4.4 |
(a) | If at any time after the First Tranche Closing Date, any Credit Party (i) sells or otherwise disposes of any assets in one or more transactions (other than pursuant to Subsection (a) to Subsection (d) of the definition of Permitted Disposal), to the extent that cash proceeds of such sale or other disposal exceed $500,000 when aggregated with the proceeds of all other sales and disposals of the Credit Parties following the date of the First Tranche Closing Date, or (ii) receives any insurance proceeds greater than $1,000,000 which are not otherwise expended on the Project within one-hundred and eighty (180) days, such Credit Party will pay or cause to be paid to the Lender (A) the proceeds of such sale, net of reasonable out-of-pocket selling costs required to be paid by such Credit Party to any third party in connection with such sale or other disposal or (B) such insurance proceeds (as the case may be), to be applied in repayment of the outstanding balance of the Facility. The Borrower shall, in addition to the amount of any prepayment under this Section 4.4(a), pay to the Lender an amount equal to the applicable Prepayment Premium as contemplated pursuant to Section 4.7. |
- 24 - |
(b) | If at any time after the First Tranche Closing Date, any Credit Party (a) sells, leases, licenses, transfers or otherwise disposes of any assets referred to in Subsection (d) of the definition of Permitted Disposal in one or more transactions, (i) if no Default has occurred and is continuing, the Borrower shall pay to the Lender 50% of the net proceeds of such sale, lease, license, transfer or other disposal (after deduction of reasonable transaction costs associated with such sale actually paid to third parties) to be applied on account of the outstanding balance of the Facility and (ii) if a Default has occurred and is continuing, the Borrower shall pay to the Lender all of the net proceeds of such sale, lease, license, transfer or other disposal (after deduction of reasonable transaction costs associated with such sale actually paid to third parties) to be applied on account of the outstanding balance of the Facility. Payments under this subsection (b) shall not attract any Prepayment Premium. |
4.5 | If at any time after the First Tranche Closing Date, any Credit Party sells or otherwise disposes of any assets in one or more transactions (other than pursuant to Subsection (a) to Subsection (c) of the definition of Permitted Disposal), to the extent that the proceeds of such transactions are not in the form of cash (or to the extent there are non-cash proceeds), such Credit Party will grant to the Lender a first ranking Encumbrance over such proceeds and provide the Lender with all such security documents, opinions and other documents as the Lender or the Lender’s Counsel may reasonably require. |
4.6 | Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control other than any Change of Control resulting from the Acquisition Transaction, (i) the Commitment shall be immediately reduced to zero and (ii) the Facility will become immediately due and payable, in full and the Borrower shall, in addition to the amount of such prepayment, pay to the Lender in respect thereof, an amount equal to the applicable Prepayment Premium together with any accrued and unpaid interest, fees and charges hereunder. |
Prepayment Premium
4.7 | In connection with any prepayment of the principal amount of the Facility (including capitalized interest, if any), whether voluntary pursuant to Section 4.3, a mandatory prepayment pursuant to Section 4.4(a), any payment in connection with a Change of Control pursuant to Section 4.6 or subsequent to any acceleration of Facility Indebtedness pursuant to Section 9.2), the Borrower shall pay the following as a prepayment premium (“Prepayment Premium”), as applicable: |
(a) | if the Borrower prepays any principal amount of the Facility (including capitalized interest, if any) on or prior to the date which is two years after the First Tranche Closing Date (the “Second Anniversary”), the Borrower shall make a payment to the Lender of a Prepayment Premium in an amount equal to 5.00% of the principal amount prepaid (including capitalized interest, if any) in addition to the amount of such prepayment; |
(b) | if the Borrower prepays any principal amount of the Facility (including capitalized interest, if any) at any time after the Second Anniversary but on or prior to the fourth anniversary of the First Tranche Closing Date (the “Fourth Anniversary”), the Borrower shall make a payment to the Lender of a Prepayment Premium in an amount equal to 3.00% of the principal amount prepaid (including capitalized interest, if any) in addition to the amount of such prepayment; and |
(c) | if the Borrower prepays any principal amount of the Facility (including capitalized interest, if any) at any time after the Fourth Anniversary, the Borrower shall not be required to pay any Prepayment Premium in addition to the amount of such prepayment. |
- 25 - |
For avoidance of doubt, no Prepayment Premium shall be payable on (i) any Mandatory Prepayment pursuant to Section 4.1(b) or Section 4.5 or (ii) on the cancellation of any part of the Facility following the expiry of the Availability Period.
Article 5
SECURITY
Security Documents
5.1 | To secure the due payment of all Indebtedness of the Credit Parties to the Lender in respect of the Facility and the payment and performance of all other obligations, indebtedness and liabilities of the Credit Parties to the Lender hereunder and under the other Facility Documents (other than the Sprott Royalty, which shall be secured in priority to Encumbrances granted pursuant to the Security Documents by security separate and apart from the Security Documents), including all interest capitalized hereunder, the Credit Parties shall execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered, as applicable, the Security Documents to the Lender. |
Registration of the Security
5.2 | The Lender shall, at the Borrower’s expense, register, file, record and give notice of (or cause to be registered, filed, recorded and given notice of) the Security Documents in all offices and registries where such registration, filing, recording or giving notice is necessary or desirable for the perfection of the Encumbrance constituted thereby and to ensure that such Encumbrance is first ranking, subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances. |
After Acquired Property and Further Assurances
5.3 | The Credit Parties shall from time to time, promptly execute and deliver all such further documents, deeds or other instruments of conveyance, assignment, transfer, mortgage, pledge or charge as may be necessary or desirable in the opinion of the Lender or Lender’s Counsel acting reasonably to complete and maintain the registration and perfection of the Encumbrances created pursuant to the Security Documents and to ensure that the Secured Assets, including any after-acquired property, are subject to the Encumbrances created and perfected pursuant to the Security Documents. |
Article 6
CONDITIONS precedent to advances
Conditions Precedent to the First Tranche Advance
6.1 | The obligation of the Lender to make the First Tranche Advance under this Agreement is subject to and conditional upon the following conditions precedent being satisfied, fulfilled or otherwise met to the satisfaction of the Lender or otherwise waived in accordance with Section 6.2 on or before the First Tranche Closing Date: |
(a) | receipt by the Lender of the following documents, each in full force and effect, and in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel: |
(i) | a Borrowing Notice delivered in accordance with Section 2.4; |
(ii) | executed copies of the Facility Documents, including, without limitation, this Agreement, the Sprott Royalty and the Security Documents described in Schedule B; |
- 26 - |
(iii) | the stock certificate or other evidence satisfactory to the Lender, acting reasonably, representing the Partner Alignment Shares; |
(iv) | a certificate of the Borrower confirming that as at the date of the First Tranche Closing Date: |
A. | the Borrower is in compliance with all its obligations under the Applicable Securities Legislation and of the Exchange in all respects; |
B. | no order or ruling suspending the sale or ceasing the trading in any securities of the Borrower or prohibiting the sale of such securities has been issued by the SEC to or against the Borrower or its directors, officers or promoters and no investigations or proceedings for such purposes have been threatened or are pending or contemplated; |
C. | there has been no material change, as defined in the Applicable Securities Legislation, relating to the Borrower, which has not been fully disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the Applicable Securities Legislation and the rules and policies of the Exchange; |
D. | no portion of the Disclosure Record in effect as of the First Tranche Closing Date contains an untrue statement of a material fact as of the date thereof nor does it omit to state a material fact which, at the date thereof, was required to have been stated or was necessary to prevent a statement that was made from being false or misleading in light of the circumstances in which it was made; |
E. | the Borrower has in all respects complied with all disclosure obligations under Applicable Securities Legislation and the rules and regulations of the Exchange and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, there has not occurred an adverse material change, financial or otherwise, in the assets, liabilities (contingent or otherwise), business, financial condition, capital of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries (taken as a whole) which was required to be disclosed and which was not disclosed; the information and statements in the Disclosure Record were true and correct in all material respects at the time such documents were filed on EDGAR; and the Disclosure Record conformed in all respects to Applicable Securities Legislation at the time such documents were filed on EDGAR; |
F. | Acquisition Corp. has the corporate power, capacity and authority to issue and deliver the Partner Alignment Shares; |
G. | the Partner Alignment Shares have been or will be validly issued as fully paid and non-assessable shares of Common Stock and none of the Partner Alignment Shares will be issued in violation of or subject to any pre-emptive rights or contractual rights to purchase securities issued by Acquisition Corp.; |
H. | Acquisition Corp. has complied with all Applicable Securities Legislation in connection with the issuance of the Partner Alignment Shares, including but not limited to, the listing of the Partner Alignment Shares on the Exchange; and |
- 27 - |
I. | Acquisition Corp. will not be a reporting issuer in any jurisdiction of Canada, and will be a “foreign issuer” (as defined in section 2.15(1) of National Instrument 45-101), on the First Tranche Closing Date. |
(v) | copies of all permits, leases and licences related to the Project and the initial Model received or entered into as of the First Tranche Closing Date; |
(vi) | confirmation from the Borrower that (i) except for the Authorizations identified on Schedule E as not having been obtained prior to the First Tranche Closing Date, all Authorizations from each Governmental Authority necessary or required as of the date of the First Tranche Closing Date to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project have been obtained and are valid, subsisting and in good standing, (ii) except for those Material Contracts identified on Schedule D as not having been executed prior to the First Tranche Closing Date, all Material Contracts as of the First Tranche Closing Date required to construct and operate the Project have been executed and provided to, and accepted by, the Lender and (iii) each Authorization from each Governmental Authority necessary or required to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project, which by their nature do not need to be obtained until a future date, are expected to be obtained prior to the time it becomes necessary or required for the then current stage of the development or operation of the Project; |
(vii) | the following Schedules updated to reflect any changes in circumstances between the date of this Agreement and the First Tranche Closing Date and the Lender, acting reasonably, shall be satisfied with all such updates to the following Schedules: |
A. | Schedule A (Project); |
B. | Schedule C (Shares and Ownership Interests); |
C. | Schedule D (Material Contracts); |
D. | Schedule E (Authorizations to be obtained on or prior to Advances); |
E. | Schedule J(Interest of Directors and Officers); and |
F. | Schedule K (Acquisition Transaction & Note Exchange Agreement). |
(viii) | customary search reports as the Lender may reasonably require with respect to the Credit Parties and the Project; |
(ix) | an up-to-date perfection certificate and due diligence checklist, including a list of the properties and assets owned by the Credit Parties; |
(x) | a Compliance Certificate; |
(xi) | certificates of status or other similar type of evidence of existence for each of the Credit Parties in its jurisdiction of formation; |
(xii) | certified copies of the Constating Documents of each of the Credit Parties; |
- 28 - |
(xiii) | copies of all agreements and documents evidencing all Royalty Obligations of the Credit Parties; |
(xiv) | certified copies of the board of directors’ resolutions for each of the Credit Parties with respect to its authorization, execution and delivery of the Facility Documents to which it is a party and the performance of all its obligations thereunder; |
(xv) | certificates of a director, managing partner or authorized officer, as applicable, of each of the Credit Parties, in each case providing customary certifications including certifying the names and the true signatures of the officers authorized to sign the Facility Documents to which it is a party; |
(xvi) | all requisite Authorizations and regulatory, stockholder, board of director and other consents, consent agreements and approvals to the transactions contemplated herein, including other third party consents, consent agreements and approvals listed in Schedule E (which shall not include, for avoidance of doubt, any consents required in connection with any Material Contracts listed under the Permits, Mining Claims and Other Rights subheading of Schedule D); |
(xvii) | stock certificates (to the extent certificated), executed blank share transfer forms and authorizing resolutions in respect of all Equity Interests pledged as at the First Tranche Closing Date and the subject of any Security Document; |
(xviii) | releases and discharges (in registrable form where appropriate) covering all Encumbrances affecting any of the Secured Assets secured by the Security Documents described in Schedule B which are not Permitted Encumbrances, including but not limited to those in relation to the Existing Debt Facilities, together with a payout statements in respect thereof; |
(xix) | title opinions and legal opinions of counsel to the Credit Parties in each Relevant Jurisdiction; and |
(xx) | an irrevocable direction to pay with respect to the First Tranche Advance; |
(b) | upon request of the Lender, the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a written report of the Project Consultant dated not earlier than 20 Business Days prior to, and not later than, the date of the Borrowing Notice delivered under this Section 6.1 confirming (i) that the development of the Project has not deviated in a material adverse respect from the Model (a material adverse respect being an adverse change of 10% or more), (ii) that the unadvanced portion of the Facility, plus the Borrower’s Unrestricted Cash or unadvanced Subordinated Indebtedness, is sufficient for the Project to achieve commercial production as contemplated by the Model and (iii) the ability of the Borrower to repay the Facility Indebtedness as such amounts come due, and in connection therewith, the Lender may review such report and conduct a site visit of the Project in conjunction with such review, at the Borrower’s sole cost and expense; |
(c) | the Lender shall have completed and be satisfied with its legal due diligence review of the Credit Parties and their respective properties and assets; |
(d) | the Borrower shall have delivered evidence satisfactory to the Lender confirming that it is in full compliance with the Project Repayment Covenant obligations set out in Section 8.1(r), demonstrating that the Borrower has the capacity to meet all present and future obligations as they come due under or in respect of the Facility and the Sprott Royalty; |
- 29 - |
(e) | the Borrower and Acquisition Corp. shall have completed the Acquisition Transaction and in connection therewith, Acquisition Corp. shall have completed the Equity Financing and its shares of Common Stock shall be listed and trading through the facilities of the Exchange; |
(f) | the Borrower shall have completed the exchange of the 1.25 Lien Notes for the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes pursuant to and in accordance with the Note Exchange Agreement and the Lender, the Borrower and the holders of the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes shall have entered into an intercreditor agreement in form and on terms satisfactory to the Lender; |
(g) | the Borrower shall have assigned this Agreement and all rights and obligations of the Borrower hereunder to Acquisition Corp., who shall have assumed all such rights and obligations of the Borrower hereunder; |
(h) | the Borrower shall have delivered evidence satisfactory to the Lender confirming that upon the closing of the First Tranche, including the proceeds of the First Tranche, the Borrower will have Available Cash of not less than the greater of (A) $50,000,000, less all amounts funded by the Borrower for the restart of the Project and (B) $20,000,000; |
(i) | evidence that all Encumbrances granted pursuant to the Security Documents described in Schedule B have been duly perfected, registered or recorded, as applicable, in all Relevant Jurisdictions and any other relevant jurisdiction as required by the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel; |
(j) | there shall be no Encumbrances whatsoever attaching to the Secured Assets, other than Permitted Encumbrances, and the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a certificate confirming same; |
(k) | all of the representations and warranties of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the First Tranche Closing Date as though made on and as of such date unless such representation is made at a point in time, and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(l) | all of the covenants and agreements of each of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document required to be fulfilled or satisfied on or before the First Tranche Closing Date have been so fulfilled or satisfied, and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(m) | no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(n) | the Lender has received payment of all fees and all costs and expenses which are payable by the Borrower to the Lender on or prior to the First Tranche Closing Date in accordance with Section 8.4; |
(o) | no event or circumstance shall have occurred or exist that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and there shall be no pending or threatened litigation, proceedings or investigations which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(p) | a certificate of a senior officer of the Borrower certifying the authorized and issued shares in Common Stock of the Borrower as of the date of the First Tranche; and |
- 30 - |
(q) | such other conditions precedent (including the delivery of such documents, certificates, opinions and agreements) as the Lender may reasonably require based on its due diligence review, |
failing which the Lender shall have no further obligation to the Borrower hereunder and the Borrower shall promptly thereafter pay to the Lender all outstanding fees and expenses in accordance with Section 8.4, including all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender in connection with this Agreement.
Waiver
6.2 | The conditions in Section 6.1 are inserted for the sole benefit of the Lender and may be waived by the Lender, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, as the Lender may determine in its sole and absolute discretion. |
Conditions Precedent to the Second Tranche Advance
6.3 | The obligation of the Lender to make the Second Tranche Advance under this Agreement is subject to and conditional upon the following conditions precedent being satisfied, fulfilled or otherwise met to the satisfaction of the Lender or otherwise waived in accordance with Section 6.4, on or before the Second Tranche Closing Date: |
(a) | receipt by the Lender of the following documents, each in full force and effect, and in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel: |
(i) | a Borrowing Notice delivered in accordance with Section 2.4; |
(ii) | executed copies of the Facility Documents not previously executed and delivered hereunder, including any Security Documents, together with supporting legal opinions and other documents as the Lender may reasonably require; |
(iii) | the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a certificate confirming the matters set out in Section 6.1(a)(iv)A through 6.1(a)(iv)E, as at the date of the Second Tranche Closing Date; |
(iv) | confirmation from the Borrower that (i) all Authorizations from each Governmental Authority necessary or required to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project as of the Second Tranche Closing Date have been obtained and are valid, subsisting and in good standing, (ii) all Material Contracts required to construct and operate the Project as of the Second Tranche Closing Date have been executed and provided to, and accepted by, the Lender and (iii) each Authorization from each Governmental Authority necessary or required to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project, as of the Second Tranche Closing Date which by its nature does not need to be obtained until a future date, is expected to be obtained prior to the time it becomes necessary or required for the then current stage of the development or operation of the Project; |
(v) | except for those Authorizations, regulatory approvals and other third party consents, consent agreements and approvals obtained in connection with the First Tranche, all requisite Authorizations, regulatory approvals and other third party consents, consent agreements and approvals to the transactions contemplated herein, including the third party consents, consent agreements and approvals listed in Schedule E (which shall not include, for avoidance of doubt, any consents required in connection with any Material Contracts listed under the Permits, Mining Claims and Other Rights subheading of Schedule D); |
- 31 - |
(vi) | the Lender, acting reasonably, shall be satisfied with all updates to Schedules made by the Borrower on or before the Second Tranche Closing Date, as contemplated herein; |
(vii) | customary search reports as the Lender may reasonably require with respect to the Credit Parties and the Project; |
(viii) | a Compliance Certificate; |
(ix) | title opinions and legal opinions of counsel to the Credit Parties in each Relevant Jurisdiction, to the extent not provided in connection with the satisfaction of the conditions in respect of the First Tranche or the Second Tranche Advance or in connection with the Sprott Royalty; and |
(x) | an irrevocable direction to pay with respect to the Second Tranche Advance; |
(b) | the Borrower shall have prepared and delivered to the Lender, and the Lender shall have reviewed and be satisfied with, a written report confirming that, in respect of the Project, the Borrower has completed the large diameter columns and that the results of such work support the assumptions set out in the Updated Project Feasibility Study and achieves average recoveries of not less than 61.75% for gold and 67.45% for silver, all to the satisfaction of the Lender; |
(c) | evidence that all Encumbrances granted pursuant to the Security Documents described in Schedule B not previously perfected, registered or recorded, as applicable, have been duly perfected, registered or recorded, as applicable, in all Relevant Jurisdictions and any other relevant jurisdiction as required by the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel; |
(d) | there shall be no Encumbrances whatsoever attaching to any of the Secured Assets, other than Permitted Encumbrances, and the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a certificate confirming same; |
(e) | all of the representations and warranties of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Second Tranche Closing Date as though made on and as of such date, unless such representation is made at a point in time and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(f) | all of the covenants and agreements of each of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document required to be fulfilled or satisfied on or before the Second Tranche Closing Date have been so fulfilled or satisfied, and the Lender has reviewed a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(g) | no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(h) | the Lender has received payment of all fees and all costs and expenses which are payable by the Borrower to the Lender on or prior to the Second Tranche Closing Date in accordance with Section 8.4; |
(i) | no event or circumstance shall have occurred or exist that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and there shall be no pending or threatened litigation, proceedings or investigations which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
- 32 - |
(j) | the Lender shall have advanced to the Borrower the First Tranche as contemplated in this Agreement; and |
(k) | such other conditions precedent (including the delivery of such documents, certificates, opinions and agreements) as the Lender may reasonably require, |
failing which the Lender shall have no further obligation to the Borrower hereunder and the Borrower shall promptly thereafter pay to the Lender all outstanding fees and expenses in accordance with Section 8.4, including all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender in connection with this Agreement.
Waiver
6.4 | The conditions in Section 6.3 are inserted for the sole benefit of the Lender and may be waived by the Lender, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, as the Lender may determine in its sole and absolute discretion. |
Conditions Precedent to Third Tranche Advances
6.5 | The obligation of the Lender to make each Third Tranche Advance under this Agreement is subject to and conditional upon the following conditions precedent being satisfied, fulfilled or otherwise met to the satisfaction of the Lender or otherwise waived in accordance with Section 6.6, on or before the applicable Third Tranche Closing Date: |
(a) | receipt by the Lender of the following documents, each in full force and effect, and in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel: |
(i) | a Borrowing Notice delivered in accordance with Section 2.4; |
(ii) | executed copies of the Facility Documents not previously executed and delivered hereunder, including any Security Documents, together with supporting legal opinions and other documents as the Lender may reasonably require; |
(iii) | the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a certificate confirming the matters set out in Section 6.1(a)(iv)A through 6.1(a)(iv)E, as at the date of the Third Tranche Closing Date; |
(iv) | confirmation from the Borrower that (i) all Authorizations from each Governmental Authority necessary or required to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project as of the Third Tranche Closing Date have been obtained and are valid, subsisting and in good standing, (ii) all Material Contracts required to construct and operate the Project as of the Third Tranche Closing Date have been executed and provided to, and accepted by, the Lender and (iii) each Authorization from each Governmental Authority necessary or required to enable the Borrower to develop and operate the Project, as of the Third Tranche Closing Date which by its nature does not need to be obtained until a future date, is expected to be obtained prior to the time it becomes necessary or required for the then current stage of the development or operation of the Project; |
(v) | except for those Authorizations, regulatory approvals and other third party consents, consent agreements and approvals obtained in connection with the First Tranche Advance or the Second Tranche Advance, all requisite Authorizations, regulatory approvals and other third party consents, consent agreements and approvals to the transactions contemplated herein, including the third party consents, consent agreements and approvals listed in Schedule E (which shall not include, for avoidance of doubt, any consents required in connection with any Material Contracts listed under the Permits, Mining Claims and Other Rights subheading of Schedule D); |
- 33 - |
(vi) | the Lender, acting reasonably, shall be satisfied with all updates to Schedules made by the Borrower on or before the applicable Third Tranche Closing Date, as contemplated herein; |
(vii) | customary search reports as the Lender may reasonably require with respect to the Credit Parties and the Project; |
(viii) | a Compliance Certificate; |
(ix) | title opinions and legal opinions of counsel to the Credit Parties in each Relevant Jurisdiction, to the extent not provided in connection with the satisfaction of the conditions in respect of the First Tranche Advance, the Second Tranche Advance or in connection with the Sprott Royalty; and |
(x) | an irrevocable direction to pay with respect to the Third Tranche Advance; |
(b) | the Borrower shall have prepared and delivered to the Lender, and the Lender shall have reviewed and be satisfied with, a written report confirming that (i) that the development of the Project has not deviated in any material adverse respect from the Model (a material adverse respect being an adverse change of 10% or more), (ii) that the unadvanced portion of the Facility, plus the Borrower’s Unrestricted Cash unadvanced Subordinated Indebtedness, is sufficient for the Project to achieve commercial production as contemplated by the Model, and (iii) the Borrower’s compliance with the Project Repayment Covenant on a pro-forma basis inclusive of the Third Tranche Advance (subject to any applicable cure period), and, in connection therewith the Lender and its technical consultants may review such report and conduct site visits of the Project in accordance with Section 8.1(r), at the Borrower’s cost and expense; |
(c) | the Lender shall be satisfied acting reasonably that the Project is operating in all material respects within the metrics set out in the Updated Project Feasibility Study; |
(d) | evidence that all Encumbrances granted pursuant to the Security Documents described in Schedule B not previously perfected, registered or recorded, as applicable, have been duly perfected, registered or recorded, as applicable, in all Relevant Jurisdictions and any other relevant jurisdiction as required by the Lender and the Lender’s Counsel; |
(e) | there shall be no Encumbrances whatsoever attaching to any of the Secured Assets, other than Permitted Encumbrances, and the Borrower shall have delivered to the Lender a certificate confirming same; |
(f) | all of the representations and warranties of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Third Tranche Closing Date as though made on and as of such date, unless such representation is made at a point in time and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(g) | all of the covenants and agreements of each of the Credit Parties contained herein or in any other Facility Document required to be fulfilled or satisfied on or before the Third Tranche Closing Date have been so fulfilled or satisfied, and the Lender has reviewed a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
- 34 - |
(h) | no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, and the Lender has received a Certificate of the Borrower so certifying to the Lender; |
(i) | the Lender has received payment of all fees and all costs and expenses which are payable by the Borrower to the Lender on or prior to the Third Tranche Closing Date in accordance with Section 8.4; |
(j) | no event or circumstance shall have occurred or exist that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and there shall be no pending or threatened litigation, proceedings or investigations which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(k) | the Lender shall have advanced to the Borrower the First Tranche as contemplated in this Agreement; and |
(l) | such other conditions precedent (including the delivery of such documents, certificates, opinions and agreements) as the Lender may reasonably require, |
failing which the Lender shall have no further obligation to the Borrower hereunder and the Borrower shall promptly thereafter pay to the Lender all outstanding fees and expenses in accordance with Section 8.4, including all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender in connection with this Agreement.
Waiver
6.6 | The conditions in Section 6.5 are inserted for the sole benefit of the Lender and may be waived by the Lender, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, as the Lender may determine in its sole and absolute discretion. |
Article 7
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Representations and Warranties of the Credit Parties
7.1 | The Credit Parties hereby represent and warrant to the Lender as of the date of the First Tranche Advance and thereafter in accordance with Section 7.2, that: |
(a) | each Credit Party has been duly incorporated or formed and organized under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation and is validly existing and is current and up-to-date with all filings required to be made under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation to maintain its corporate existence and has all requisite corporate power to carry on its business as now conducted and to own, lease or operate its property, and no steps or proceedings have been taken by any Person, voluntary or otherwise, requiring or authorizing its dissolution or winding up; |
(b) | each Credit Party and any representative signing on its behalf has full power and capacity to enter into each of the Facility Documents to which it is a party and to do all acts and things and execute and deliver all documents as are required hereunder or thereunder to be done, observed, performed or executed and delivered by it in accordance with the terms hereof and thereof, and each Credit Party has taken all necessary corporate action to duly authorize the creation, execution, delivery and performance of each of the Facility Documents to which it is a party and to observe and perform the provisions of such Facility Documents in accordance with the provisions thereof; |
- 35 - |
(c) | upon the execution and delivery thereof, the Facility Documents will create legal, valid and binding obligations of each Credit Party that is party to them enforceable against each such Credit Party in accordance with their respective terms except as enforcement thereof maybe limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other laws relating to or affecting the rights of credits generally and except as limited by the application of equitable principles, and by the indemnity, contribution and waiver and the ability to sever unenforceable terms may be limited by Applicable Law; |
(d) | the entry into and the performance of its obligations under each Facility Document to which it is a party is in its best interests and for a proper purpose; |
(e) | none of the execution and delivery of the Facility Documents, the compliance by the Credit Parties with the provisions of the Facility Documents or the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein, does or will: (i) require the consent, approval, Authorization, order or agreement of, or registration or qualification with, any Governmental Authority, court, stock exchange, securities regulatory authority or other Person, except those listed on Schedule E, all of which will have been obtained or will be obtained before the applicable Closing Date, as required hereunder; (ii) conflict with or result in any breach or violation of any of the provisions of, or constitute a default under, any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, material lease or other agreement or instrument to which any Credit Party is a party or by which it or any of its properties or assets is bound; or (iii) conflict with or result in any breach or violation of any provisions of, or constitute a default under the Constating Documents of any Credit Party or any resolution passed by the directors (or any committee thereof) or stockholders of any Credit Party, or any statute or any judgment, decree, order, rule, policy or regulation of any court, Governmental Authority, any arbitrator, stock exchange or securities regulatory authority applicable to any Credit Party or any of the properties or assets thereof; |
(f) | except as set forth in Schedule C, no Credit Party owns, beneficially or of record, or exercises Control over, any Equity Interests of any Person; |
(g) | other than pursuant to the Acquisition Transaction or as disclosed in the Acquisition Corp. SEC Reports filed with the SEC on or prior to the First Tranche Closing Date (to the extent the qualifying nature of such disclosure is readily apparent from the content of such Acquisition Corp. SEC Reports), no Person has any agreement, option, right or privilege (whether pre-emptive, contractual or otherwise) capable of becoming an agreement, for the purchase, acquisition, subscription for, or issue of, any of the unissued shares or other securities of the Borrower or any other Credit Party; |
(h) | no Credit Party carries on business, has an office or owns any properties or assets located, outside of Colorado, Nevada, Texas or Delaware; |
(i) | each Credit Party is licensed, registered or qualified as a foreign corporation in all jurisdictions where the character of any of its owned or leased properties or assets or the nature of the activities conducted by it make licensing, registration or qualification necessary and is carrying on the business thereof in compliance in all material respects with all Applicable Laws of each such jurisdiction; |
(j) | each Credit Party has conducted and is conducting its business in compliance in all material respects with Applicable Law and possesses all Authorizations necessary to carry on the business currently carried on by it in all material respects, is in compliance with the Model in all material respects and all terms and conditions of all such Authorizations, and no Credit Party has received any written notice of the modification, revocation or cancellation of, any intention to modify, revoke, or cancel, or any proceeding relating to the modification, revocation or cancellation of any such Authorization; |
- 36 - |
(k) | no Credit Party has incurred any Indebtedness or guaranteed the obligations of any Person, except for Permitted Indebtedness; |
(l) | the contracts, agreements and other documents listed in Schedule D represent all Material Contracts of the Credit Parties, each of which is in full force and effect, unamended, and true and complete copies of which have been provided to the Lender; |
(m) | any and all of the agreements and other documents and instruments pursuant to which any Credit Party holds any material property and/or assets (including any interest in, or right to earn an interest in, any property) are valid and subsisting agreements, documents or instruments in full force and effect, enforceable in accordance with the terms thereof except as enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other laws relating to or affecting the rights of credits generally and except as limited by the application of equitable principles, and by the indemnity, contribution and waiver and the ability to sever unenforceable terms may be limited by Applicable Law. No Credit Party is in default in any material respect of any provision of any such agreements, documents or instruments, nor has any such default been alleged, and such material properties and assets are in good standing under the Applicable Laws of the jurisdictions in which they are situated, and all material leases, licenses and claims pursuant to which any Credit Party derives the interests thereof in such property and assets are in good standing and there has been no default under any such lease, licence or claim. None of the material properties or assets (or any interest in, or right to earn an interest in, any property) of any Credit Party is subject to any right of first refusal, purchase, acquisition or similar right; |
(n) | Hycroft Resources holds freehold title, mining leases, mining claims or other conventional property, proprietary or contractual interests or rights, recognized in the jurisdiction in which a particular property is located, in respect of the ore bodies, metals and minerals located in properties in which it has an interest as described in the Updated Project Feasibility Study under valid, subsisting and enforceable title documents (except as enforcement thereof maybe limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium and other laws relating to or affecting the rights of credits generally and except as limited by the application of equitable principles, and by the indemnity, contribution and waiver and the ability to sever unenforceable terms may be limited by Applicable Law) or other recognized and enforceable agreements or instruments, sufficient to permit them to explore and extract the metals and minerals relating thereto as contemplated in the Model, all such property, leases or claims and all property, leases or claims in respect of the Project in which they have an interest or right have been validly located and recorded in accordance with Applicable Law in all respects and are valid and subsisting; Hycroft Resources has all necessary surface rights, access rights and other necessary rights and interests relating to the properties in which it has an interest as described in the Updated Project Feasibility Study in respect of the Project granting it the right and ability to access, explore and extract minerals, ore and metals for development purposes as contemplated in the Model as are appropriate in view of the rights and interest therein, with only such exceptions as do not interfere with the use made by it of the rights or interests so held and each of the proprietary interests or rights and each of the documents, agreements and instruments and obligations relating thereto referred to above is currently in good standing in its name; |
(o) | each Credit Party has good and valid right, title and interest in and to all of its properties and assets, movable (personal) or immovable (real), free and clear of all Encumbrances, whether registered or unregistered, except Permitted Encumbrances, and no such properties or assets are subject to any earn-in right, right of first refusal, purchase, acquisition or similar right, granted in favour of any Person, except Permitted Encumbrances; |
- 37 - |
(p) | the description of the Project contained in Schedule A is a true and complete description of the Project; |
(q) | the Credit Parties are in compliance with all reclamation obligations applicable to the Project required under Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority, have in place a mine closure plan approved by the appropriate Governmental Authorities and have posted all bonding, security and other financial commitments which is required under Applicable Law in connection therewith, pursuant to all Applicable Law; |
(r) | each Plan is in compliance in all material respects with the applicable provisions of ERISA, the Code and other federal or state laws; |
(s) | there are no pending or, to the best knowledge of the Borrower, threatened claims, actions or lawsuits, or action by any Governmental Authority, with respect to any Plan that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There has been no prohibited transaction or violation of the fiduciary responsibility rules with respect to any Plan that has resulted or could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect; |
(t) | (i) no ERISA Event has occurred, and neither the Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate is aware of any fact, event or circumstance that could reasonably be expected to constitute or result in an ERISA Event with respect to any Pension Plan or Multiemployer Plan; (ii) neither the Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate has incurred any liability to the PBGC other than for the payment of premiums, and there are no premium payments which have become due that are unpaid; (iii) neither the Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate has engaged in a transaction that could be subject to section 4069 or section 4212(c) of ERISA; and (iv) no Pension Plan has been terminated by the plan administrator thereof nor by the PBGC, and no event or circumstance has occurred or exists that could reasonably be expected to cause the PBGC to institute proceedings under Title IV of ERISA to terminate any Pension Plan; |
(u) | with respect to each scheme or arrangement mandated by a government other than the United States (a “Foreign Government Scheme or Arrangement”) and with respect to each employee benefit plan maintained or contributed to by any Credit Party or any Subsidiary of any Credit Party that is not subject to United States law (a “Foreign Plan”): |
(i) | any employer and employee contributions required by law or by the terms of any Foreign Government Scheme or Arrangement or any Foreign Plan have been made, or, if applicable, accrued, in accordance with normal accounting practices; |
(ii) | the fair market value of the assets of each funded Foreign Plan, the liability of each insurer for any Foreign Plan funded through insurance or the book reserve established for any Foreign Plan, together with any accrued contributions, is sufficient to procure or provide for the accrued benefit obligations, as of the date hereof, with respect to all current and former participants in such Foreign Plan according to the actuarial assumptions and valuations most recently used to account for such obligations in accordance with applicable generally accepted accounting principles; and |
(iii) | each Foreign Plan required to be registered has been registered and has been maintained in good standing with applicable regulatory authorities; |
- 38 - |
(v) | each Credit Party owns or has the right to use under license, sub-license or otherwise all intellectual property used by it in its business, including copyrights, industrial designs, trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and proprietary rights, free and clear of any and all Encumbrances except Permitted Encumbrances; |
(w) | no Subsidiaries of the Borrower other than Hycroft Resources own any properties or assets or have any liabilities, except for stockholdings disclosed in Schedule C; |
(x) | no Credit Party maintains, or has any obligation or liability in relation to, any contributory pension plan, other than ongoing obligations relating to 401(k) plans; |
(y) | there are no pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings of any kind which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(z) | except for Permitted Encumbrances, there are no royalty obligations or similar obligations applicable to the properties of any Credit Party, including but not limited to the property interests comprising the Project; |
(aa) | other than part of the Acquisition Transaction, no Credit Party has approved entering into any agreement in respect of (i) the sale of any property of such Credit Party, or assets or any interest therein or the sale, transfer or other disposition of any property of such Credit Party, or assets or any interest therein currently owned, directly or indirectly, by such Credit Party whether by asset sale, transfer of shares or otherwise or (ii) any Change of Control; |
(bb) | the consolidated financial statements of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 that have been provided to the Lender have been made in accordance with Applicable Law, give a true and fair view of the Borrower’s consolidated financial position as at the date thereof in all material respects, comply with U.S. GAAP in all material respects, and no adverse material change in the financial position of the Credit Parties, taken as a whole, has taken place since the date thereof; |
(cc) | other than liabilities associated with this Agreement and the Acquisition Transaction, none of the Credit Parties has any liabilities, fixed or contingent, of the type required to be reflected as liabilities in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP as of the date of the most recently completed audited consolidated financial statements, that are not reflected in the most recent audited consolidated financial statements of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, or in the notes thereto, that have been provided to the Lender; |
(dd) | the Borrower’s Auditors are independent certified public accountants and have participant status with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; |
(ee) | all Taxes of each Credit Party have been paid when due and all Tax returns, declarations, remittances and filings required to be filed by any Credit Party have been filed with all appropriate Governmental Authorities and all such returns, declarations, remittances and filings were, at the time of filing, complete and accurate in all respects and no fact or facts have been omitted therefrom which could make any of them misleading. There are no issues or disputes outstanding with any Governmental Authority respecting any Taxes that have been paid, or may be payable, by any Credit Party and no examination of any Tax return of any Credit Party is currently in progress (save in respect of any issue, dispute or examination which the relevant Credit Party (or Credit Parties) is disputing in good faith and pursuant to appropriate proceedings diligently conducted); |
- 39 - |
(ff) | (i) no Credit Party is in violation of any Environmental Laws including laws relating to the release or threatened release of chemicals, pollutants, contaminants, wastes, toxic substances, hazardous substances, petroleum or petroleum by-products (collectively, “Hazardous Materials”) or the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, treatment, storage, disposal, transport or handling of Hazardous Materials; (ii) each Credit Party has all Authorizations required under any applicable Environmental Laws and, each Credit Party is in compliance with such Authorizations; (iii) there are no pending or threatened administrative, regulatory or judicial actions, suits, demands, claims, liens, notices of non-compliance or, to any Credit Party’s knowledge, violation, investigation or proceedings relating to any Environmental Laws against any Credit Party; and (iv) there are no events or circumstances that could reasonably be expected to form the basis of an order for clean-up or remediation, or an action, suit or proceeding by any private party or Governmental Authority, against or affecting any Credit Party relating to any Environmental Laws, which in each case in respect of any matter referred to in (i) to (iv) could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(gg) | each Credit Party operates its business in compliance in all material respects with all Applicable Laws relating to employment and there are no material legal proceedings nor, to the knowledge of any Credit Party, any material legal proceedings threatened, against any Credit Party pursuant to any Applicable Laws relating to employment. There are no outstanding decisions, orders, judgments or settlements or pending settlements under any Applicable Laws relating to employment, which place any obligation upon any Credit Party to do or refrain from doing any act. Each Credit Party is up to date in the payment of all premiums or assessments under applicable workers compensation or other worker safety legislation applicable in the Relevant Jurisdictions, and no Credit Party is subject to any special assessment or penalty under any such legislation; |
(hh) | (i) no material complaint for wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal or any other claim, complaint, litigation or other proceeding respecting employment and employment practices, terms and conditions of employment, pay equity and wages is pending against any Credit Party or threatened against any Credit Party as of the date hereof; (ii) no grievance or arbitration arising out of or under any collective bargaining agreement is pending against any Credit Party or threatened against it; and (iii) no strike, or labour dispute, slowdown or stoppage is pending or threatened against any Credit Party; |
(ii) | save except as set out on Schedule J hereto (which schedule shall be updated to reflect any changes in circumstances between the date of this Agreement and the First Tranche Closing Date and after the First Tranche Closing Date, shall be updated, to the extent required, on the date of any Subsequent Tranche Advance) or on account of Existing Debt Facilities (all of which, except for the 1.25 Lien Notes which will have been exchanged for the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes, will be repaid or converted prior to or concurrently with the First Tranche Advance) incurred to the First Tranche Closing Date, none of the directors, officers or employees of any Credit Party or any Affiliate of a Credit Party had or has any interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction or any proposed transaction with any Credit Party; |
(jj) | the assets of each Credit Party and their respective businesses and operations are insured against loss or damage with insurers on a basis consistent with insurance obtained by reasonably prudent participants in comparable businesses, such coverage is in full force and effect, and no Credit Party has failed to promptly give any notice of any claim thereunder. There are no claims by any Credit Party under any such policy or instrument as to which any insurance company is denying liability; |
(kk) | no Credit Party is in breach or default of any term of its Constating Documents. No Credit Party is in breach or default of any term or provision of any agreement, indenture or other instrument applicable to it which could reasonably be expected to result in any Material Adverse Effect, and there is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation commenced, pending or threatened which, either in any case or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to result in any Material Adverse Effect or which places, or could place, in question the validity or enforceability of this Agreement, or any document or instrument delivered, or to be delivered, by any Credit Party pursuant hereto; |
(ll) | no Credit Party is in breach or default of any term, covenant or condition under or in respect of any judgment, order, agreement or instrument to which it is a party or to which it or any of the property or assets thereof are subject which, and no event has occurred and is continuing, and no circumstance exists which has not been waived, which constitutes a default in respect of any commitment, agreement, document or other instrument to which any Credit Party is a party or by which it is otherwise bound entitling any other party thereto to accelerate the maturity of any amount owing thereunder or which could reasonably be expected to result in any Material Adverse Effect; |
(mm) | other than as set out on Schedule I hereto, no Credit Party has committed or commenced any act of bankruptcy, liquidation, receivership, dissolution, winding-up, relief of debtors, is otherwise insolvent, has proposed a compromise or arrangement to its respective creditors generally, has had a petition or receiving order in bankruptcy filed against it, has made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy, has taken any proceedings with respect to a compromise or arrangement, has taken any proceedings to have a receiver appointed for any of its property or has had any execution or distress become enforceable or become levied against it or upon any of its property or assets; |
(nn) | there are no actions, suits, proceedings, inquiries or investigations existing, pending or threatened against or adversely affecting any Credit Party or to which any of their properties or assets is subject, at law or equity, or before or by any Governmental Authority which individually or in aggregate could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and no Credit Party is subject to any judgment, order, writ, injunction, decree, award, rule, policy or regulation of any Governmental Authority which individually or in aggregate could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(oo) | the Credit Parties have disclosed to the Lender in writing all material aspects of the ongoing class action litigation matters represented by LBP Holdings Ltd. v Hycroft Mining Corporation, et al. (court file no. CV-14-50851300-CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice) and In Re Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (lead case number 3:14-cv-00175-LRH-WGC in the United States District Court District of Nevada); all liability exposure thereunder, including all costs of such proceedings, is fully insured through policies of insurance held by one or more of the Credit Parties; and none of the Credit Parties has received any notice or other indication from its insurers that such insurance coverage in respect of such proceedings will not be, or continue to be, fully insured; |
(pp) | no Credit Party and no director or officer, and to the best of the knowledge of the Credit Parties after all due inquiry, no agent, employee or other Person acting on behalf of any Credit Party has, in the course of its actions for, or on behalf of, any Credit Party (i) used any corporate funds for any unlawful contribution, gift, entertainment or other unlawful expenses relating to political activity; (ii) made any direct or indirect unlawful payment to any foreign or domestic government official or employee from corporate funds; (iii) violated or is in violation of any provision of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Canada), the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or any other similar laws (the “Anti-Corruption Laws”); or (iv) made any bribe, rebate, payoff, influence payment, kickback or other unlawful payment to any foreign or domestic government official, employee or other Person; |
- 40 - |
(qq) | the Borrower has implemented and maintains in effect for itself and its Subsidiaries policies and procedures to ensure compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries, and their respective officers, employees, directors, and agents with the Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions; |
(rr) | none of the Borrower, any of its Subsidiaries or any director, officer, employee, agent, or affiliate of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries is an individual or entity that is, or is 50% or more owned (individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly) or controlled by individuals or entities (including any agency, political subdivision or instrumentality of any government) that are (i) the target of any Sanctions or (ii) located, organized or resident in a country or territory that is, or whose government is, the subject of Sanctions; |
(ss) | no Credit Party enjoys immunity from suit or execution in relation to its obligations under any Facility Document to which it is a party; |
(tt) | the most recent Model delivered by the Borrower to the Lender has been prepared in good faith by the Borrower based upon (i) the assumptions stated therein (which assumptions are believed by the Borrower on the date of delivery of such Model, to be reasonable), and (ii) the best information available to the Borrower as of the date of delivery of such Model; as of the date of delivery of the most recent Model, to the knowledge of the Borrower, no material fact, occurrence, circumstance or effect has occurred that could result in or require any material adverse change to such Model; the development of the Project has not deviated from the Model; the intended use of proceeds of each Advance is in accordance and consistent with the Model; for the work completed to date, construction is progressing in all material respects in accordance with the Model (and failing which all cost overruns have been settled and paid from sources other than the Facility proceeds); |
(uu) | the most recent Model delivered by the Borrower to the Lender does not contemplate any mining or related activities which are contingent or dependent upon receipt of the final EIS and the ROD in respect thereof approving the final EIS, all as contemplated in Section 8.1(w), prior to December 31, 2021; and |
(vv) | there is no fact or circumstance which the Borrower has failed to disclose to the Lender in writing which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. As of the date hereof, the information included in the perfection certificate delivered by the Borrower to the Lender is true and correct in all material respects. |
Acknowledgement
7.2 | The Credit Parties acknowledge that the Lender is relying upon the representations and warranties in this Article 7 in discharging its obligations under this Agreement and that such representations and warranties shall be deemed to be restated, save and except for those representations and warranties which are given at a point in time, effective on the date each Advance is made and on the date of each Compliance Certificate delivered after the First Tranche Closing Date. |
Survival and Inclusion
7.3 | The representations and warranties in this Article 7 will survive the termination of this Agreement. All statements, representations and warranties contained in any other Facility Document or in any instruments delivered by or on behalf of the Credit Parties or the Lender pursuant to this Agreement or any other Facility Document will be deemed to constitute statements, representations and warranties made by the Credit Parties to the Lender under this Agreement. |
- 41 - |
Representations and Warranties of the Lender
7.4 | The Lender hereby represents and warrants to the Credit Parties as of the First Tranche Closing Date and as of the date of each Subsequent Tranche Advance that, under Applicable Law (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital) as in effect as of the First Tranche Closing Date, interest payable hereunder to the Lender is not effectively connected with the conduct by the Lender of a trade or business in the United States. |
Article 8
COVENANTS OF THE borrower
General Covenants
8.1 | While any Facility Indebtedness is outstanding or the Facility remains available to the Borrower following the First Tranche Advance, the Credit Parties covenant and agree with the Lender as follows: |
(a) | the Borrower will duly and punctually pay or cause to be paid to the Lender each Amount Payable, on the dates, at the places, in the currency and in the manner mentioned herein, including, without limitation, upon the acceleration of the Facility in accordance with Section 9.2 the outstanding balance of the Facility; |
(b) | except as otherwise permitted by this Agreement, they will at all times maintain their corporate existence, obtain and maintain all Authorizations required or necessary in connection with their business, the Project and/or all of the Secured Assets, observe and perform all their obligations under all Authorizations and to carry on and conduct their business and exploit the Project in accordance with prudent mining industry standards; |
(c) | they will keep or cause to be kept proper books of account and make or cause to be made therein true and complete entries of all of their dealings and transactions in relation to their businesses in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and at all reasonable times during normal business hours they will furnish or cause to be furnished to the Lender or its duly authorized representative, agent or attorney such information relating to their operations as the Lender may reasonably request and such books of account shall be open for inspection by the Lender or such representative, agent or attorney, upon reasonable prior notice (unless a Default is continuing, in which case no prior notice shall be required) and during regular business hours in the location of the requested information (unless a Default is continuing, in which case the Lender will be entitled to conduct such inspection at any time); |
(d) | they will (at the Borrower’s cost and expense) provide the Lender and its representatives or any agent or attorney thereof access to all its properties (including the Project), assets and books and records, upon reasonable prior notice and during regular business hours (unless a Default exists and is continuing in which case no prior notice is required and the Lender will have access at any time); |
(e) | they will diligently pursue, in all respects, all mining and related activities in respect of the Project, as contemplated by the most recent Model delivered by the Borrower to the Lender; |
(f) | they will diligently pursue all requisite Authorizations and regulatory approvals to the transactions contemplated herein as and when the same are required in accordance with the Model; |
- 42 - |
(g) | the Credit Parties will at all times comply with all reclamation obligations applicable to the Project as required under Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority, maintain a mine closure plan and maintain all bonding, security and other financial commitments which is required under Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority in connection therewith; |
(h) | from and after the First Tranche Closing Date (unless such Security Document is not entered into until a later date, then from and after such later date), they will ensure that each of the Security Documents will at all times constitute valid and perfected first ranking security on all of the Secured Assets, in accordance with their terms, subject only to Permitted Encumbrances, and at all times take all actions reasonably required by the Lender to create, perfect and maintain the Encumbrances granted pursuant to the Security Documents as perfected first ranking security over the Secured Assets, subject only to Permitted Encumbrances; |
(i) | they will duly and punctually perform and carry out all of the covenants and acts or things to be done by them as provided in this Agreement and each of the other Facility Documents; |
(j) | they will comply, and conduct their business in such a manner so as to comply with all Applicable Law, including all Applicable Securities Legislation, Anti-Corruption Laws, ERISA, Sanctions and all Environmental Laws (including, without limitation, laws relating to the release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials and the manufacture, processing distribution, use, treatment, storage, disposal, transport or handling of Hazardous Materials) and Authorizations; |
(k) | the Borrower shall promptly, and in any event no later than three Business Days after the Borrower obtains knowledge thereof, deliver written notice to the Lender of the occurrence of: (i) any material environmental accident or spill affecting any Credit Party or the Project or (ii) any other condition, event or circumstance that results in a material non-compliance by any Credit Party or the Project with any Environmental Law or Authorizations; |
(l) | they will: (i) maintain policies of insurance with carriers and in such amounts and covering such risks as are usually carried by companies engaged in similar businesses and owning similar properties in the same general areas in which the Credit Parties operate and otherwise on terms and in such amounts as may be acceptable to the Lender, and add and maintain the Lender as first loss payee and as an additional insured under all such policies to the extent of its interest; and (ii) on an annual basis and/or at any other time, promptly at the request of the Lender, deliver to the Lender evidence of and all certificates and reports prepared in connection with such insurance; |
(m) | they shall promptly notify the Lender in writing upon becoming aware of: (i) any Default, or (ii) any suit, proceeding or governmental investigation pending or, to any Credit Party’s knowledge, threatened or any notification of any challenge to the validity of any Authorization, relating to the Credit Parties or any of the Secured Assets, or (iii) the occurrence of any ERISA Event; |
(n) | they will maintain, preserve and protect or cause to be maintained, preserved and protected the Secured Assets and the Project in accordance with prudent mining industry standards (and in the case of tangible Secured Assets, in good condition subject to normal wear and tear); |
(o) | from and after the First Tranche Closing Date, no later than 45 days following the end of each Fiscal Quarter, the Borrower shall deliver to the Lender a Compliance Certificate executed by a senior financial officer of the Borrower dated as at the end of the last completed Fiscal Quarter; |
- 43 - |
(p) | no later than thirty (30) days following the last day of each calendar month, if requested by the Lender, provide the Lender with unconsolidated monthly financial and operational reports, consisting of each of the Credit Parties’ balance sheet, income statement, statement of accounts payables and accrued liabilities, standard monthly costs and operating reports provided to management or the board of directors, in the form agreed with the Lender from time to time, and such other information with respect to the Credit Parties as the Lender may request; |
(q) | from and after the First Tranche Closing Date, the Borrower will, on a consolidated basis and as determined by reference to the previously filed (or, if applicable pursuant to Section 8.5, delivered) reports and the unconsolidated monthly reports referred to in Section 8.1(p), ensure at all times that: |
(i) | the amount of its Working Capital is in excess of $10,000,000; and |
(ii) | the amount of its Unrestricted Cash is greater than $10,000,000; |
(r) | commencing on the First Tranche Closing Date and every six months thereafter (and within 30 days of any material adverse change to the mine plan or inputs to the Model or upon any written request of the Lender), the Borrower will deliver an updated Model applying Bloomberg consensus gold and USD:CAD FX forward prices, stress tested by less/greater than 5%, demonstrating that the Borrower has the capacity to meet all present and future obligations as they come due under or in respect of the Facility (including under each Facility Document) and the Sprott Royalty (the “Project Repayment Covenant”). The updated Model will also be revised to reflect changes in projections, including mine plans, recoveries, production forecasts, capital expenditures, operating costs and financing transactions, including proceeds from any contemplated equity transactions. The Borrower shall remedy to the Lender’s satisfaction any breach or deficiency in meeting the Project Repayment Covenant, in the manner determined by the Lender, within 60 days after the required delivery date of the Model; |
(s) | the Borrower shall continue to employ and retain Randy Buffington in his positions as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Borrower and Steve Jones in his positions as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Borrower, both on a full-time basis, until the earlier of (i) the repayment in full of the Facility Indebtedness and (ii) the date on which the Project has been operating for not less than one year within the operational and performance metrics set out in the Updated Project Feasibility Study; |
(t) | they will timely file all Tax returns as and when required pursuant to Applicable Law and pay and discharge or cause to be paid and discharged, promptly when due, all Taxes imposed upon them or in respect of any of the Secured Assets or upon the income or profits therefrom as well as all claims of any kind (including claims for labour, materials, supplies and rent) which, if unpaid, might become an Encumbrance thereupon except for a Permitted Encumbrance; provided however, that they shall not be required to pay or cause to be paid any such Tax if the amount, applicability or validity thereof shall concurrently be contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; |
(u) | they will cause all steps necessary or required to be taken diligently to protect and defend the Secured Assets and the proceeds thereof against any adverse claim or demand, including without limitation, the employment or use of counsel for the prosecution or defence of litigation and the contest, settlement, release or discharge of any such claim or demand; |
- 44 - |
(v) | if and to the extent that any Credit Party holds or is granted any Encumbrances, it will take all steps necessary or required to ensure that such Encumbrance is attached, enforceable and continuously perfected under the Uniform Commercial Code (or such similar legislation pursuant to which such Encumbrance is granted) until the obligations it secures are satisfied or it is released by the Lender for value; |
(w) | on or before December 31, 2021, the Credit Parties will obtain a final environmental impact statement (the “EIS”) and a record of decision (the “ROD”) from the Bureau of Land Management for the State of Nevada (the “BLM”), approving the EIS submitted by Hycroft Mining Corporation to the BLM, as referred to in the public notice filed by Hycroft Mining Corporation on May 17, 2019; |
(x) | at all times after the First Tranche Closing Date, if any existing or future Subsidiary of a Credit Party other than the Guarantors acquires or holds any assets with a book value greater than $1,000,000 other than Equity Interests disclosed on Schedule C, such Subsidiary shall (and the Borrower will ensure that such Subsidiary shall): |
(i) | promptly (and in any event within fifteen Business Days following demand by the Lender) accede to this Agreement as a Guarantor pursuant to an accession agreement to be agreed between the Lender and the Borrower and such Subsidiary, which accession shall include the delivery of customary conditions precedent documentation, including that Subsidiary’s Constating Documents, appropriate authorizations and confirmations and a legal opinion of counsel to the Credit Parties in the jurisdiction of formation of that Subsidiary and in a form satisfactory to the Lender, acting reasonably, and grant to the Lender an unlimited guarantee and security over all of its properties and assets, granting a first priority Encumbrance (subject to Permitted Encumbrances), in substantially similar form to those provided by the Guarantors; and |
(ii) | promptly (and in any event within fifteen Business Days following demand by the Lender) arrange for a pledge, in a form satisfactory to the Lender, granting a first priority Encumbrance (subject to Permitted Encumbrances) over all of the issued and outstanding Equity Interests of such Subsidiary to and in favour of the Lender to be delivered by the holders of such Equity Interests, together with any necessary or desired registration, perfection, filing, opinions and further assurance steps as the Lender may determine, and together with any other documents reasonably requested by the Lender in order to evidence the validity and enforceability of such share pledge; |
(y) | the Borrower will maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions; and |
(z) | if, after the date hereof, the Lender, through information received from any Governmental Authority or any other Person as a result of a request for information delivered by or on behalf of the Lender or otherwise, identifies any adverse condition or circumstance relating to any Credit Party or the Project, such Credit Party shall take all steps as may be reasonably required by the Lender to remedy any such adverse condition or circumstance to the satisfaction of the Lender, acting reasonably. |
- 45 - |
Negative Covenants of the Credit Parties
8.2 | While any Facility Indebtedness is outstanding or the Facility remains available to the Borrower following the First Tranche Advance, the Credit Parties covenant and agree with the Lender that, except with prior written consent of the Lender, they will not: |
(a) | directly or indirectly issue, incur, assume or otherwise become liable for or in respect of any Indebtedness other than Permitted Indebtedness; |
(b) | directly or indirectly create, incur, assume, permit or suffer to exist any Encumbrance against any of their properties or assets, including, without limitation, any of the Secured Assets or the Material Contracts, other than Permitted Encumbrances; |
(c) | convey, sell, lease, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of (i) any of their properties or assets other than pursuant to a Permitted Disposal or (ii) directly or indirectly, any interest in the Borrower or any other Credit Party; |
(d) | materially amend, modify, vary or terminate any Material Contract, license, permit or other Authorization held by any of the Credit Parties in a manner which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect on the Credit Parties or the Project; |
(e) | other than pursuant to or in connection with the Acquisition Transaction, enter into any reorganization, consolidation, amalgamation, merger, arrangement or similar transaction, or any scheme for the reconstruction or reorganization of it or any of its Subsidiaries or for the consolidation, amalgamation, merger, arrangement or similar transaction of it or any of its Subsidiaries with or into any other Person; |
(f) | make any prepayment on, purchase, redeem, or otherwise acquire or retire for value, prior to any scheduled final maturity, any Indebtedness other than (i) the Facility Indebtedness or (ii) the Existing Debt Facilities and any other Indebtedness to be repaid with the proceeds of the First Tranche Advance, as contemplated pursuant to Section 2.6; |
(g) | other than pursuant to or in connection with the Acquisition Transaction, purchase, redeem, retire, repurchase and cancel or otherwise acquire for cash, any Equity Interest; |
(h) | make any change to their Constating Documents in a manner that adversely affects the interests of the Lender or any Encumbrance granted to the Lender under the Security Documents; |
(i) | following the First Tranche Closing Date, change the name of any Credit Party without the prior written approval of the Lender, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; |
(j) | transfer or permit the transfer of any Equity Interests of any Credit Party other than Acquisition Corp. or otherwise allow any Credit Party other than Acquisition Corp. to cease to be direct or indirect wholly-owned Subsidiary of Acquisition Corp.; |
(k) | declare, make, provide for or pay any Distribution; |
(l) | make any payment to any stockholder or Affiliate thereof in relation to any stockholder loan or other indebtedness to any stockholder or to any other non-arm's-length party, except in each case, for any (x) Subordinated Indebtedness made in accordance with the terms of any intercreditor agreement with the Lender or (y) any Indebtedness to be paid in advance of the First Tranche Closing Date or with proceeds of the First Tranche Advance as contemplated herein, or (z) any transaction with any non-arm's-length party entered into in the ordinary course of business at fair market value consistent with past practice and, in each case, provided no Default has occurred; |
(m) | provide any Financial Assistance to any Person, other than (i) Financial Assistance to a Credit Party, and (ii) Financial Assistance that is Permitted Indebtedness; |
- 46 - |
(n) | incur any Contingent Liability for the obligations of any other Person other than any Contingent Liability (i) which constitutes Permitted Indebtedness or (ii) contractual indemnifications incurred in the ordinary course of business; |
(o) | other than as disclosed on Schedule I hereto, enter into or become party or subject to any dissolution, winding-up, reorganization, arrangement or similar transaction or proceeding; |
(p) | engage in the conduct of any business other than the business of such Credit Party as existing on the date of this Agreement, business related to the Project or in businesses reasonably related to the foregoing; |
(q) | create or acquire any Subsidiary except in compliance with Section 8.1(x); |
(r) | maintain, or have any obligation or liability in relation to, any contributory pension plan, other than ongoing obligations pursuant to 401(k) plans; |
(s) | use the proceeds of the Advances, or lend, contribute or otherwise make available such proceeds to any Subsidiary or other Person, (i) to fund any activities or business of or with any Person, or in any country or territory, that, at the time of such funding, is, or whose government is, the subject of Sanctions, or (ii) in any other manner that would result in a violation of Sanctions by any Person (including any Person participating in the Advances, whether as underwriter, advisor, investor, or otherwise); or |
(t) | save and except in accordance with Applicable Law or pursuant to the written directive of any relevant Government Authority, withdraw or direct, authorize, permit or cause the release of any reclamation security, bonding or other financial commitments given by any of the Credit Parties to any applicable Governmental Authority in respect of the Project. |
Continued Listing
8.3 | From and after the First Tranche Closing Date, Acquisition Corp. shall take all reasonable steps and actions as may be required to maintain the listing of the shares of Common Stock on the Exchange. |
To Pay Lender’s Fees and Expenses
8.4 | The Borrower will pay for the Lender's reasonable and documented legal fees (on a solicitor and own-client basis) and all other reasonable and documented costs, charges and expenses (including all reasonable and documented due diligence expenses) of and incidental to the preparation, execution and completion of this Agreement and the other Facility Documents (including notaries’ and translator’s fees where such notarial and translation services are customarily required), and all amendments thereto, and as may be required by the Lender or the Lender’s Counsel to complete or facilitate the transactions contemplated herein and to administer the Facility, including but not limited to technical consulting and other due diligence and ongoing compliance and monitoring costs. In respect of all the Lender’s out-of-pocket costs, charges and expenses incurred prior to the date of the Term Sheet only (including, for avoidance of doubt, all legal fees and fees of any agent of the Lender to the date of the Term Sheet), the Borrower will reimburse the Lender up to a maximum of $60,000. The Borrower further covenants and agrees to pay all of the Lender's legal fees (on a solicitor and own-client basis) and all other costs, charges and expenses of and incidental to the recovery of all amounts owing hereunder, including but not limited to those incurred in connection with any enforcement or realization proceedings under or in connection with this Agreement and/or any of the other Facility Documents, including the Security Documents. All amounts referred to herein will be payable upon demand. If not paid within three Business Days of demand, all such amounts shall accrue interest at the rate set forth in Section 2.7 from the date of demand. On or subsequent to the date of execution of the Term Sheet, the Borrower deposited with the Lender a retainer of $100,000, which amount shall be credited against the Borrower’s obligation to pay the Lender’s legal fees pursuant this Section 8.4 following itemized details and invoices being provided by the Lender to the Borrower. |
- 47 - |
Comply with Applicable Disclosure Obligations
8.5 | From and after the First Tranche Closing Date, the Borrower shall timely file all documents that must be publicly filed pursuant to Applicable Securities Legislation within the time prescribed by such Applicable Securities Legislation and make such documents available on EDGAR within such prescribed time period. If the Borrower is not at any time subject to Applicable Securities Legislation, the Borrower shall deliver to the Lender: (i) within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, copies of its annual report and audited annual financial statements, and (ii) within 45 days after the end of each of the first three Fiscal Quarters of each fiscal year, interim financial statements which shall, at a minimum, contain such information required to be provided in quarterly reports by a “reporting issuer” (as such term is defined in such Applicable Securities Legislation) under the Applicable Securities Legislation. Each of such reports will be prepared in accordance with the disclosure requirements of Applicable Securities Legislation. |
To Pay Additional Amounts
8.6 | Each Credit Party will, from time to time, promptly pay or make provisions satisfactory to the Lender for the payment of any additional amounts, including Taxes, which may be imposed on such Credit Party by any Applicable Law (except income tax or security transfer tax, if any) which shall be payable with respect to the Facility. |
8.7 | Any and all payments by or on account of any obligation of the Credit Parties hereunder or under any other Facility Document shall be made free and clear of and without deduction or withholding for any Taxes, except as required by Applicable Law. If any Credit Party is required by Applicable Law to deduct or withhold any Taxes from such payments, then: |
(a) | the amount payable by the applicable Credit Party shall be increased so that after all such required deductions or withholdings are made (including deductions or withholdings applicable to additional amounts payable under this Section 8.7), the Lender receives an amount equal to the amount it would have received had no such deduction or withholding been made, and |
(b) | such Credit Party shall make such deductions or withholdings and pay the full amount deducted or withheld to the relevant Governmental Authority in accordance with Applicable Law. |
8.8 | The Borrower shall (within three Business Days of demand by the Lender) pay to the Lender an amount equal to the loss, liability or cost which the Lender determines will be or has been (directly or indirectly) suffered for or on account of Tax by the Lender in respect of any Facility Document. |
8.9 | If the Lender is entitled to an exemption from or reduction of withholding Tax with respect to payments made under any Facility Document, it shall deliver to the Credit Party, at the time or times reasonably requested by the Credit Party, such properly completed and executed documentation reasonably requested by the Credit Party as will permit such payments to be made without withholding or at a reduced rate of withholding. In addition, the Lender, if reasonably requested by the Credit Party, shall deliver such other documentation prescribed by Applicable Law or reasonably requested by the Credit Party as will enable the Credit Party to determine whether or not the Lender is subject to backup withholding or information reporting requirements. |
- 48 - |
8.10 | If the Lender (referred to in this paragraph as an “indemnified party”) determines, in its sole discretion exercised in good faith, that it has received a refund of any Taxes in respect of which it has received additional amounts pursuant to Section 8.7 or as to which it has been indemnified pursuant to Section 8.8, it shall promptly pay to the party that paid such additional amounts or indemnity payments, as applicable, (referred to in this paragraph as an “indemnifying party”) an amount equal to such refund (but only to the extent of additional amounts or indemnity payments made under Sections 8.7 and 8.8 with respect to the Taxes giving rise to such refund), net of all out-of-pocket expenses (including Taxes) of such indemnified party and without interest (other than any interest paid by the relevant Governmental Authority with respect to such refund). Such indemnifying party, upon the request of such indemnified party, shall repay to such indemnified party the amount paid over pursuant to this Section 8.10 (plus any penalties, interest or other charges imposed by the relevant Governmental Authority) in the event that such indemnified party is required to repay such refund to such Governmental Authority. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 8.10, in no event will the Lender be required to pay any amount to an indemnifying party pursuant to this Section 8.10 the payment of which would place the Lender in a less favorable net after-Tax position than the Lender would have been in if the Tax subject to indemnification and giving rise to such refund had not been deducted, withheld or otherwise imposed and the indemnification payments or additional amounts with respect to such Tax had never been paid. This Section 8.10 shall not be construed to require the Lender to make available its Tax returns (or any other information relating to its Taxes that it deems confidential) to the indemnifying party or any other Person. |
8.11 | The obligation of a Credit Party to pay an amount pursuant to Sections 8.7 and 8.8 hereof to an assignee or participant of the Facility shall be no greater than the obligation of the Credit Party to pay such amounts to the Lender with respect to such Facility, determined as if it had not been assigned or participated. |
Further Assurances
8.12 | Each of the Credit Parties shall, from time to time, as may be reasonably required by the Lender, execute and deliver such further and other documents and do all matters and things which are necessary to carry out the intention and provisions of this Agreement. |
Lender May Perform Covenants
8.13 | If any of the Credit Parties shall fail to perform any of its respective covenants contained in this Agreement or any of the other Facility Documents, the Lender may, upon becoming aware of such failure and upon providing prior notice to the Borrower, in its discretion, but need not, itself perform any of such covenants capable of being performed by it, but is under no obligation to do so. All reasonable sums so required to be paid in connection with the Lender’s performance of any covenant will be paid by the Credit Parties and all sums so paid shall be payable by the Credit Parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.4. No such performance by the Lender of any such covenant or payment or expenditure by any Credit Party of any sums advanced or borrowed by the Lender pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall be deemed to relieve any of the Credit Parties from any default hereunder or their respective continuing obligations hereunder. |
- 49 - |
Article 9
DEFAULT AND ENFORCEMENT
Events of Default
9.1 | The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute an “Event of Default” hereunder: |
(a) | if the Borrower fails to make any payment of any principal amount of the Facility or interest payable hereunder, when due; |
(b) | if the Borrower fails to pay any fees, costs, expenses or other amounts or charges payable hereunder when due and such failure shall continue unremedied for a period of three (3) Business Days thereafter; |
(c) | if any Credit Party defaults in observing or performing any covenant or condition set out in Sections 8.1(q) or 8.1(r) or Section 8.2; |
(d) | if any Credit Party defaults in observing or performing any covenant or condition set out in Section 8.1(o) or 8.1(p) and such failure shall continue unremedied for a period of three (3) Business Days thereafter; |
(e) | if any Credit Party defaults in observing or performing any covenant or condition of this Agreement or any other Facility Document, including but not limited to the Sprott Royalty and the Security Documents (other than any covenant or condition referred to in Section 9.1(a), 9.1(b), 9.1(c) or 9.1(d)), on its part to be observed or performed and, with respect to such covenants or conditions which are capable of being cured, if such default continues for a period of 10 Business Days, after the earlier of knowledge thereof by the relevant Credit Party or notice thereof from the Lender; |
(f) | any Facility Document ceases to be in full force and effect or any Security Document ceases to constitute a valid and perfected first priority Encumbrance (subject only to Permitted Encumbrances) upon all the Secured Assets it purports to charge or encumber, in favour of the Lender; |
(g) | the institution by any Credit Party of proceedings to be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent or any similar proceedings or the seeking by it of liquidation, reorganization (by way of voluntary arrangement, scheme of arrangement or otherwise) or relief under any applicable federal, provincial, state or other law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, or the filing by it of any such petition or to the appointment under any such law of a receiver, receiver-manager, liquidator, assignee, trustee or other similar official of any Credit Party of all or substantially all of its property, or the making by it of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or the admission by it in writing of its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; |
(h) | any proceedings are commenced by a Person other than a Credit Party for the bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization (by way of voluntary arrangement, scheme of arrangement or otherwise), winding-up, liquidation or dissolution or any similar proceedings of such Credit Party; |
(i) | the entry of a decree or order by a court having jurisdiction adjudging any Credit Party to be bankrupt or insolvent or approving as properly filed an application or a petition seeking liquidation, reorganization (by way of voluntary arrangement, scheme of arrangement or otherwise), arrangement or adjustment of or in respect of such Credit Party under any Applicable Law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of debtors, or appointing under any such law a receiver, receiver-manager, liquidator, assignee, trustee or other similar official of such Credit Party or of all or substantially all of its property, or ordering pursuant to any such law the winding-up or liquidation of its affairs and such decree or order continues unstayed and in effect for greater than thirty (30) days after such filing; |
(j) | (i) an ERISA Event occurs with respect to a Pension Plan or Multiemployer Plan which has resulted or could reasonably be expected to result in liability of the Borrower to the Pension Plan, Multiemployer Plan or the PBGC, or (ii) the Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate fails to pay when due, after the expiration of any applicable grace period, any installment payment with respect to its withdrawal liability under section 4201 of ERISA under a Multiemployer Plan; |
- 50 - |
(k) | this Agreement or any other Facility Document is claimed by any Credit Party to cease in whole or in any part to be a legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligation of such Credit Party; |
(l) | this Agreement or any other Facility Document shall for any reason cease in whole or in any part to be a legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligation of the Credit Party; |
(m) | any Credit Party fails to pay the principal of, premium, if any, interest on, or any other amount owing in respect of any of its Indebtedness or obligation which is outstanding in an aggregate principal amount exceeding $1,000,000 when such amount becomes due and payable (whether by scheduled maturity, required prepayment, acceleration, demand or otherwise) and such failure continues after the applicable grace or cure period, if any, specified in the agreement or instrument relating to such Indebtedness or obligation; or any other event occurs or condition exists and continues after the expiry of the applicable grace or cure period, if any, specified in any agreement or instrument relating to any such Indebtedness or obligation, if its effect is to accelerate or permit the acceleration of, such Indebtedness or obligation; or any such Indebtedness or obligation shall be, or may be, declared to be due and payable prior to its stated maturity, in each case in respect of any of its Indebtedness or obligation which is outstanding in an aggregate principal amount exceeding $1,000,000; |
(n) | any representation or warranty at the time given by any Credit Party in this Agreement or any other Facility Document shall prove to be incorrect or misleading; |
(o) | the occurrence or existence of any Material Adverse Effect in the opinion of the Lender, acting reasonably; |
(p) | if either of Randy Buffington or Steve Jones cease to hold any of their respective positions set out in Section 8.1(s) and the Borrower has failed to find suitable replacements for any such positions acceptable to the Lender, acting reasonably after nine (9) months of Randy Buffington or Steve Jones ceasing to hold any such position; |
(q) | any destruction, suspension or abandonment of the Project or any part thereof which destruction, suspension or abandonment causes any material reduction in the value thereof, which is not compensated by insurance of the Credit Parties or material adverse delay of its development or the ability of the Project to achieve of commercial production; |
(r) | if any Credit Party or any of its Subsidiaries ceases or threatens to cease to carry on business; |
(s) | final non-appealable judgments or decrees for the payment of money in excess of $1,000,000 in the aggregate which are not otherwise covered by insurance of a Credit Party, are rendered against any Credit Party by any courts having jurisdiction, and such judgments or decrees have not been paid in full by any Credit Party within 30 days after such judgments or decrees have become final non-appealable judgments or decrees; |
(t) | other than pursuant to the Acquisition Transaction, if the Borrower ceases to own, directly or indirectly, 100% of the common stock and other Equity Interests in the capital of any other Credit Party other than the Borrower; |
(u) | (i) the Borrower is in default of any provision under any Material Contract and that default continues unremedied after the relevant cure period provided for under such Material Contract, such that the result is that the counterparty could reasonably be expected to terminate the Material Contract or (ii) if any Material Contract is terminated or cancelled other than by expiry by its term and is not replaced by a replacement Material Contract which is substantially similar to the Material Contract that it is replacing and otherwise in form and substance satisfactory to the Lender within sixty (60) days, or is amended in any material adverse respect, without the prior written consent of the Lender; or |
- 51 - |
(v) | an Event of Default (as defined under the Sprott Royalty or the security therefor) occurs and is continuing under the Sprott Royalty or the security therefor. |
Acceleration on Default
9.2 | If any Event of Default shall occur and be continuing, the Lender may, by notice to the Borrower, declare its commitment to advance the Facility or any portion thereof to be terminated, whereupon the same shall forthwith terminate, and may declare the entire unpaid principal amount of the Facility, all interest accrued and unpaid thereon and all other fees, charges, costs and other amounts hereunder to be forthwith due and payable, whereupon the principal amount of the Facility, all such accrued interest and all other fees, charges, costs and other amounts hereunder, including the applicable Prepayment Premium, shall become and be forthwith due and payable, without presentment, demand, protest or further notice of any kind, all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Borrower, provided that upon the occurrence of any Event of Default under Sections 9.1(g), 9.1(h) or 9.1(i), the Lender’s commitment to make any Advance or any portion thereof shall immediately terminate and the Facility Indebtedness, including the entire unpaid principal amount of the Facility, all interest accrued and unpaid thereon and all other fees, charges, costs and other amounts owing under any of the Facility Documents shall be immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, protest or notice of any kind, automatically without the giving of any such notice by the Lender; and thereupon, the Lender may exercise any or all of the Lender’s rights and remedies under the Security Documents, and proceed to enforce all other rights and remedies available to the Lender under this Agreement, the Security Documents, any other Facility Documents and Applicable Law. |
Waiver of Default
9.3 | If an Event of Default shall have occurred, the Lender shall have the power to waive such Event of Default if, in the Lender’s opinion, the same shall have been cured or adequate provision made therefor, upon such terms and conditions as the Lender may consider advisable, provided that no delay or omission of the Lender to exercise any right or power accruing upon any Event of Default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such Event of Default or acquiescence therein and provided further that no act or omission of the Lender shall extend to or be taken in any manner whatsoever to affect any subsequent Event of Default hereunder or the rights resulting therefrom. |
Enforcement by the Lender
9.4 | If an Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing, but subject to Section 9.3: |
(a) | the Lender may in its sole discretion proceed to enforce, and to instruct any other Person to enforce, the rights of the Lender by any action, suit, remedy or proceeding authorized or permitted by this Agreement or any of the Security Documents or any other Facility Document or by law or equity; and may file such proofs of claim and other papers or documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have the claims of the Lender lodged, filed or otherwise recorded in any bankruptcy, insolvency, winding-up or other judicial proceedings relating to any Credit Party; and |
- 52 - |
(b) | no such remedy for the enforcement of the rights of the Lender shall be exclusive of or dependent on any other such remedy but any one or more of such remedies may from time to time be exercised independently or in combination. |
Application of Moneys
9.5 | Except as otherwise provided herein, any moneys arising from any enforcement by the Lender under any of the Facility Documents or other proceedings against any Credit Party pursuant to any of the Facility Documents or from any trustee in bankruptcy or liquidation of any of the Credit Parties, shall be held by the Lender and applied by it, together with any moneys then or thereafter in the hands of the Lender available for the purpose of distribution to the Lender, as follows: |
(a) | first, in payment or reimbursement to the Lender of the remuneration, expenses, disbursements, and advances of the Lender earned, incurred or made in the administration or enforcement any of the Facility Documents or otherwise in relation to any of the Facility Documents with interest thereon as herein provided; |
(b) | second (but subject to Section 8.4 and this Section 9.5), in or towards payment of all Amounts Payable; and |
(c) | third, the surplus (if any) of such moneys shall be paid to the Borrower or as it may direct. |
Persons Dealing with Lender
9.6 | No Person dealing with the Lender or any of its agents shall be required to enquire whether an Event of Default has occurred, or whether the powers which the Lender is purporting to exercise have become exercisable, or whether any moneys remain due under this Agreement, or to see to the application of any moneys paid to the Lender, and in the absence of fraud on the part of such Person, such dealing shall be deemed to be within the powers hereby conferred and to be valid and effective accordingly. |
Lender Appointed Attorney
9.7 | Following an Event of Default, which is continuing, the Credit Parties irrevocably appoint the Lender to be the attorney of the Credit Parties in the name and on behalf of the Credit Parties to execute any instruments and do any things which the Credit Parties ought to execute and do, and has not executed or done, under the covenants and provisions contained in this Agreement and generally to use the name of the Credit Parties in the exercise of all or any of the powers hereby conferred on the Lender with full powers of substitution and revocation. Such power of attorney, being coupled with an interest, is irrevocable. |
Remedies Cumulative
9.8 | No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Lender is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or under any Facility Document or now or hereafter existing by law or by statute. |
- 53 - |
Article 10
BREAK FEE
Break Fee
10.1 | In accordance with Section 10.2, the Credit Parties shall pay to the Arranger a $4,250,000 break fee (the “Break Fee”) if after the execution and delivery of this Agreement the Borrower does not draw down the First Tranche Advance and agrees to or enters into one or more similar capital raising transactions (debt, equity or otherwise) with other counterparties having an aggregate principal amount or gross proceeds of not less than $175,000,000, on or before July 31, 2020 (a “Damage Event”). For the avoidance of doubt, a capital raising transaction shall not include the issuance of the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes subject to the Note Exchange Agreement. |
10.2 | The Break Fee shall be payable within five Business Days of the date of any Damage Event. |
10.3 | The Credit Parties acknowledge and agree that upon the occurrence of any Damage Event, the Arranger will sustain damages as a result the Damage Event by virtue of no longer being entitled to compensation it would otherwise receive from the Lender in connection with the transaction contemplated herein. The Credit Parties acknowledge and agree that it is and will be impractical and extremely difficult to ascertain and determine the actual damages which the Arranger will sustain in the event of and by reason of the occurrence of any Damage Event. The Credit Parties further agree that the Break Fee represents a reasonable and genuine pre-estimate of the Arranger’s actual damages in the event of and by reason of the occurrence of any Damage Event. |
Article 11
NOTICES
Notice to the Borrower
11.1 | Any notice to the Credit Parties under the provisions of this Agreement or any other Facility Document shall be valid and effective if delivered personally, by email or courier transmission to or, if given by registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed to, the relevant Credit Party at c/o Hycroft Mining Corporation, 8181 E. Tufts Ave., Suite 510, Denver, CO 80237, Email: Steve.Jones@hycroftmining.com, Attention: Steve Jones, with a copy to (which copy shall not be deemed to be notice) to Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Suite 2200, HSBC Building, 885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3E8, Email: dbudd@casselsbrock.com, Attention: David Budd and Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, 2 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1700 , Chicago, IL 60602-3801, Email: DStone@nge.com, Attention: David Stone and shall be deemed to have been given on the date of personal delivery if on a Business Day and otherwise on the next Business Day, on the date of sending if by courier or by email transmission if so delivered or sent prior to 5:00 p.m. (Toronto time) on a Business Day and otherwise on the next Business Day, or on the fifth Business Day after such letter has been mailed, as the case may be. Any Credit Party may from time to time notify the Lender of a change in address which thereafter, until changed by further notice, shall be the address of the Credit Party for all purposes of this Agreement. |
Notice to the Lender or the Arranger
11.2 | Any notice to the Lender or the Arranger under the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and effective if delivered personally, by email or courier transmission to or, if given by registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Lender at its principal office at Suite 2600, 200 Bay Street, Toronto, ON M5J 2J2, Tel: (416) 977-7222, Email: jgrosdanis@sprott.com, Attention: Chief Financial Officer, and shall be deemed to have been given on the date of personal delivery if on a Business Day and otherwise on the next Business Day, on the date of sending if by courier or by email transmission if so delivered prior to 5:00 p.m. (Toronto time) on a Business Day and otherwise on the next Business Day or on the fifth Business Day after such letter has been mailed, as the case may be. The Lender or the Arranger may from time to time notify the Borrower of a change in address which thereafter, until changed by further notice, shall be the address of the Lender and the Arranger for all purposes of this Agreement. |
- 54 - |
Waiver of Notice
11.3 | Any notice provided for in this Agreement may be waived in writing by the Person entitled to receive such notice, either before or after the event, and such waiver shall be the equivalent of such notice. |
Article 12
indemnities
General Indemnity
12.1 | Each of the Credit Parties expressly declares and agrees as follows: |
(a) | the Lender, its partners and its and their directors, officers, employees, and agents, and all of their respective representatives, heirs, successors and assigns (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”) will at all times be indemnified and saved harmless by the Credit Parties from and against all claims, demands, losses, actions, causes of action, costs, charges, expenses, damages and liabilities whatsoever arising in connection with this Agreement and the other Facility Documents, including, without limitation, those arising out of or related to actions taken or omitted to be taken by the Lender contemplated hereby, reasonable legal fees and disbursements on a solicitor and own client basis and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the enforcement of this indemnity, which the Lender may suffer or incur, whether at law or in equity, in any way caused by or arising, directly or indirectly, in respect of any act, deed, matter or thing whatsoever made, done, acquiesced in or omitted in or about or in relation to the execution of its duties as Lender and including any act, deed, matter or thing in relation to the registration, perfection, release or discharge of security. The foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply in any circumstances where any Indemnified Party was grossly negligent acted with wilful misconduct or not in good faith in relation to their obligations hereunder. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Agreement and any transfer and/or assignment by the Lender of any of its rights and/or obligations; and |
(b) | the Lender may act and rely, and shall be protected in acting and relying upon, any resolution, certificate, statement, instrument, opinion, report, notice, request, consent, order, letter, telegram, cable, facsimile or other paper or electronic document reasonably believed by it to be genuine and to have been signed, sent or presented by or on behalf of the proper party or parties. |
Environmental Indemnity
12.2 | Each of the Credit Parties hereby indemnifies and holds harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss, expense, claim, proceeding, judgment, liability or asserted liability (including strict liability and including costs and expenses of abatement and remediation of spills or releases of any Hazardous Materials and including liabilities of the Indemnified Parties to third parties (including Governmental Authorities) in respect of bodily injuries, property damage, damage to or impairment of the environment or any other injury or damage and including liabilities of the Indemnified Parties to third parties for the third parties' foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages) incurred as a result of or in connection with the administration or enforcement of this Agreement or any other Facility Document, including the exercise by the Lender of any rights hereunder or under any other Facility Document, which result from or relate, directly or indirectly, to: |
(a) | the presence or release of any Hazardous Material, by any means or for any reason, on the Secured Assets, whether or not the release or presence of such Hazardous Material was under the control, care or management of any Credit Party or of a previous owner, or of a tenant; or |
- 55 - |
(b) | the breach or alleged breach of any Environmental Laws by the Credit Party. |
The foregoing provisions of this Section do not apply in any circumstances where any Indemnified Party was grossly negligent or acted with wilful misconduct in relation to their obligations hereunder. For purposes of this Section, “liability” shall include (a) liability of an Indemnified Party for costs and expenses of abatement and remediation of spills and releases of any Hazardous Material, (b) liability of an Indemnified Party to a third party to reimburse the third party for bodily injuries, property damages and other injuries or damages which the third party suffers, including (to the extent, if any, that the Indemnified Party is liable therefor) foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages suffered by the third party, (c) liability of the Indemnified Party for damage suffered by the third party, (d) liability of an Indemnified Party for damage to or impairment of the environment and (e) liability of an Indemnified Party for court costs, expenses of alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and fees and disbursements of expert consultants and legal counsel on a solicitor and client basis.
Action by Lender to Protect Interests
12.3 | The Lender shall have the power to institute and maintain all and any such actions, suits or proceedings and to take any other action as it may consider necessary or expedient to preserve, protect or enforce its interests. |
Article 13
miscellaneous
Amendments and Waivers
13.1 | No amendment to any provision of the Facility Documents shall be effective unless it is in writing and has been signed by the Lender and the Credit Parties who are party to that Facility Document, and no waiver of any provision of any Facility Document, or consent to any departure by the relevant Credit Party therefrom, shall be effective unless it is in writing and has been signed by the Lender. Any such amendment, waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given. |
No Waiver; Remedies Cumulative
13.2 | No failure on the part of the Lender to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power or privilege under any Facility Document shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, remedy, power or privilege preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege. The rights and remedies under the Facility Documents are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights, remedies, powers and privileges that may otherwise be available to the Lender. |
Survival
13.3 | All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made in any of the Facility Documents shall, except to the extent otherwise provided therein, survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and each Advance, and shall continue in full force and effect so long as any part of the Facility Indebtedness remains outstanding or any other obligation remains unpaid or any obligation to perform any other act hereunder or under any other Facility Document remains unsatisfied. |
Benefits of Agreement
13.4 | The Facility Documents are entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns, and no other Person (other than the Indemnified Parties) shall be a direct or indirect beneficiary of, or shall have any direct or indirect cause of action or claim in connection with, any Facility Document. |
- 56 - |
Binding Effect; Assignment; Syndication
13.5 | This Agreement shall become effective when it shall have been executed by the parties hereto and thereafter shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. |
13.6 | Except for an assignment of the Facility Documents by the Borrower to Acquisition Corp., which shall be permitted on or before the First Tranche Closing Date without the consent of the Lender, subject to Acquisition Corp. having completed or concurrently therewith completing the Acquisition Transaction and further provided that Acquisition Corp. fulfills the conditions precedent to the First Tranche Advance to the satisfaction of the Lender, the Credit Parties shall not have the right to transfer or assign their rights and obligations hereunder or under the other Facility Documents or any interest herein or therein without the prior written consent of the Lender, which may be withheld in the Lender’s sole discretion. Concurrently with the completion of the Acquisition Transaction and on the assignment pursuant to this Section 13.6, Hycroft Mining Corporation shall be released of all obligations under this Agreement and under any other Facility Document or the Royalty Agreement and the Borrower, as defined in this Agreement, shall for all purposes be Acquisition Corp. |
13.7 | The Lender reserves the right to sell, assign, transfer or grant participations in all or any portion of the Lender’s interests, rights and obligations hereunder and under the other Facility Documents to any Person other than a Restricted Assignee upon notice to, and without the consent of, the Borrower. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, if any Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing for a period of not less than 30 days, the Lender may sell, assign, transfer or grant participations in all or any portion of the Lender’s interests, rights and obligations hereunder and under the other Facility Documents to any Person, including any Restricted Assignee, upon notice to, and without the consent of, the Borrower. In the event of any sale, assignment or transfer by the Lender of all of its interests, rights and obligations hereunder and under the other Facility Documents, upon notice thereof to the Borrower, the purchaser, assignee or transferee (as the case may be) shall be deemed the “Lender” for all purposes of the Facility Documents with respect to the rights and obligations sold, assigned or transferred (as the case may be) to it, the obligations of the Lender so sold, assigned or transferred (as the case may be) shall thereupon terminate and the selling, assigning or transferring (as the case may be) Lender shall be released from all obligations to the Credit Parties in respect thereof. The Credit Parties shall, from time to time upon request of the Lender at the Lender’s expense, enter into such amendments to the Facility Documents and execute and deliver such other documents as shall be necessary to effect any such sales, assignments or transfers and maintain the first priority perfected Encumbrance (subject to Permitted Encumbrances) created by the Security Documents. The Credit Parties acknowledge and agree that the Lender is authorized to disclose to any purchaser, assignee, transferee or participant and any prospective purchaser, assignee, transferee or participant any and all financial and other information concerning the Credit Parties, their respective properties and assets and the Facility and any other transactions contemplated herein, whether received by the Lender or derivative thereof, in connection with the Lender’s credit evaluation, internal reporting, or other activities reasonably incidental to the management or administration of the Facility, including in connection with the enforcement thereof. |
Maximum Return
13.8 | Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any other Facility Document: |
(a) | in this Section 13.8, “interest” and “credit advanced” have the meanings ascribed to them in section 347 of the Criminal Code (Canada), and “Maximum Rate” means the highest effective annual rate of interest calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practices and principles, on the credit advanced under an agreement or arrangement, which is lawfully permitted under section 347 of the Criminal Code (Canada); |
- 57 - |
(b) | if, by entering into this Agreement and the other Facility Documents, the Lender has entered into an agreement or arrangement to receive interest, on the credit advanced under this Agreement, in an amount which exceeds the Maximum Rate, then the interest will be reduced to the extent required to eliminate such excess (in the manner specified below); |
(c) | if interest in the aggregate, on the credit advanced under this Agreement, is or is about to be received in an amount which exceeds the Maximum Rate, then the interest will be reduced, with retroactive effect, to the extent required to eliminate such excess (in the manner specified below), and if and to the extent so reduced the Lender will return the same; and |
(d) | any reduction of interest pursuant to Section 13.8(b) or Section 13.8(c) will be made in the following order (in each case, only to the extent required): firstly, a reduction of the amount or rate of interest payable under Section 2.7; secondly, a reduction of the amounts to be paid on account of the Lender’s legal fees and other out-of-pocket expenses; and lastly, a reduction of any other amounts which constitute interest, as the Lender may determine. |
In the event of a dispute in relation to this Section 13.8, a certificate of a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries qualified for a period of at least ten (10) years and appointed by the Lender will be conclusive for the purposes of such determination. A certificate of an authorized signing officer of the Lender as to each amount, rate and/or other component of interest payable hereunder or in connection herewith from time to time shall be conclusive evidence of such amount, rate and/or other component, absent manifest error.
Judgment Currency
13.9 | If, for the purposes of obtaining judgment in any court, it is necessary to convert a sum due hereunder in Dollars into another currency, the parties hereto agree, to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law, that the rate of exchange used shall be that at which, in accordance with normal banking procedures, the Lender could purchase Dollars with such other currency at the buying spot rate of exchange in the foreign exchange markets on the Business Day immediately preceding that on which any such judgment, or any relevant part thereof, is given. |
13.10 | The obligations of the Credit Parties in respect of any sum due to the Lender hereunder and under the other Facility Documents shall, notwithstanding any judgment in a currency other than Dollars, be discharged only to the extent that on the Business Day following receipt by the Lender of any sum adjudged to be so due in such other currency the Lender may, in accordance with normal banking procedures, purchase Dollars with such other currency. If the amount of Dollars so purchased is less than the sum originally due to the Lender in Dollars, each of the Credit Parties agrees, to the fullest extent that it may effectively do so, as a separate obligation and notwithstanding any such judgment, to indemnify the Lender against such loss. |
Entire Agreement
13.11 | The Facility Documents reflect the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and therein and supersede any prior agreements, commitments, drafts, communication, discussions and understandings, oral or written, with respect thereto, including but not limited to the Term Sheet. |
Joint and Several
13.12 | The covenants, agreements, representations, warranties, acknowledgments of the Credit Parties in this Agreement shall constitute the joint and several covenants, agreements, representations, warranties, acknowledgments of the Credit Parties and shall be read and construed accordingly. |
- 58 - |
Payments Set Aside
13.13 | To the extent that any payment by or on behalf of the Borrower is made to the Lender, or the Lender exercises its right of set-off, and such payment or the proceeds of such set-off or any part thereof is subsequently invalidated, declared to be fraudulent or preferential, set aside or required (including pursuant to any settlement entered into by the Lender in its discretion) to be repaid to a trustee, receiver or any other Person, in connection with any proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code of the United States of America, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada), the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada), the Winding-up and Restructuring Act (Canada), the receivership laws of any Relevant Jurisdiction or other liquidation, conservatorship, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors, moratorium, rearrangement, receivership, insolvency, reorganization, or similar debtor relief laws, or otherwise, then to the extent of such payment or the proceeds of such set-off, the obligation or part thereof originally intended to be satisfied shall be revived and continued in full force and effect as if such payment had not been made or such set-off had not occurred. |
Severability
13.14 | Whenever possible, each provision of the Facility Documents shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under all Applicable Laws. If, however, any provision of any of the Facility Documents shall be prohibited by or invalid under any such Applicable Law in any jurisdiction, it shall, as to such jurisdiction, be deemed modified to conform to the minimum requirements of such Applicable Law, or, if for any reason it is not deemed so modified, it shall be ineffective and invalid only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity without affecting the remaining provisions of such Facility Document, or the validity or effectiveness of such provision in any other jurisdiction. |
Counterparts and facsimile
13.15 | This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and such executed counterparts may be delivered by electronic transmission of an authorized signature (including in pdf) and each such counterpart shall be deemed to form part of one and the same document. |
Confidentiality
13.16 | The Lender acknowledges the confidential nature of the financial and operational information and data provided and to be provided to it by the Credit Parties pursuant hereto (“Information”). The Lender will only use such Information and data for purposes of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and will use commercially reasonable efforts to prevent the disclosure thereof by it to any other Person in accordance with its customary procedures for handling confidential information of this nature; provided however, that the Lender may disclose any part of such Information: |
(a) | to its Affiliates, and to its and its Affiliates’ directors, officers, employees, agents, counsel, accountants or other representatives and professional advisors for purposes of the transactions contemplated by the Facility Documents, provided such recipient has been informed of the confidential nature of such Information; |
- 59 - |
(b) | to any actual or potential participant or assignee which has agreed in writing to maintain such Information in confidence on terms substantially similar to this Section 13.16; |
(c) | to any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over the Lender in order to comply with any Applicable Law or as otherwise required by Applicable Law or pursuant to subpoena or other legal process; |
(d) | to the extent requested by any Governmental Authority or other regulatory or self-regulatory authority purporting to have jurisdiction over it or its Affiliates; |
(e) | in connection with any action or proceeding or other exercise of any right or remedy hereunder, under any other Facility Documents or the Sprott Royalty; |
(f) | is available to the Lender or any of their Affiliates on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the Borrower; |
(g) | which at the time it was provided to the Lender was in the public domain; |
(h) | which after it was provided to the Lender is in the public domain other than through a breach by such Lender of this Section 13.16; and |
(i) | to the extent Borrower consents to such disclosure. |
Accounting.
13.17 | Except as provided to the contrary herein, all accounting terms used herein shall be interpreted and all accounting determinations hereunder shall be made in accordance with U.S. GAAP in a manner consistent with that used in preparing the financial statements referred to in Section 7.1(bb); provided, however, that notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, all terms of an accounting or financial nature used herein shall be construed, and all computations of amounts and ratios referred to herein shall be made without giving effect to (i) any election under Accounting Standards Codification section 825-10-25 (or any other Accounting Standards Codification or Financial Accounting Standard having a similar result or effect) to value any Indebtedness or other liabilities of the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries at “fair value”, as defined therein, or (ii) any treatment of Indebtedness in respect of convertible debt instruments under Financial Accounting Standards Codification Subtopic 470-20 (or any other Accounting Standards Codification or Financial Accounting Standard having a similar result or effect) to value any such Indebtedness in a reduced or bifurcated manner as described therein, and such Indebtedness shall at all times be valued at the full stated principal amount thereof. If at any time any change in U.S. GAAP would affect the computation of any financial ratio or requirement set forth in any Facility Document, and the Borrower or the Lender shall so request, the Lender and the Borrower shall negotiate in good faith to amend such ratio or requirement to preserve the original intent thereof in light of such change in U.S. GAAP; provided, that until so amended, such ratio or requirement shall continue to be computed in accordance with U.S. GAAP prior to such change therein and the Borrower shall provide to the Lender reconciliation statements showing the difference in such calculation, together with the delivery of monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements required hereunder. |
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement under the hands of their proper officers duly authorized in that behalf.
HYCROFT MINING CORPORATION | ||
Per: | /s/ Stephen M. Jones | |
Authorized Signatory | ||
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC. | ||
Per: | /s/ Stephen M. Jones | |
Authorized Signatory | ||
ALLIED VGH INC. | ||
Per: | /s/ Stephen M. Jones | |
Authorized Signatory |
SPROTT
PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (COLLECTOR), LP,
by its general partner, SPROTT RESOURCE LENDING CORP. |
||
Per: | /s/ Jim Grosdanis | |
Authorized Signatory | ||
Per: | /s/ Nariander Nagra | |
Authorized Signatory | ||
SPROTT RESOURCE LENDING CORP. | ||
Per: | /s/ Jim Grosdanis | |
Authorized Signatory | ||
Per: | /s/ Nariander Nagra | |
Authorized Signatory |
Exhibit 10.9
Form of Sprott Royalty Agreement
ROYALTY Agreement
Between
MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION
- and -
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
- and -
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (CO) INC.
[●], 2020
|
1. | Definitions | 1 |
2. | Interpretation | 10 |
3. | Royalty | 11 |
First Royalty Repurchase Price = (A x B x C) – (A x D) | 11 | |
Second Royalty Repurchase Price = | 12 | |
(A x B x C) – (A x D) | 12 | |
4. | Payment of Cash Consideration | 15 |
5. | Calculation of Net Smelter Returns | 16 |
6. | Taxes | 17 |
7. | Reporting Obligations | 19 |
8. | Records; Audits; Inspections | 20 |
9. | Maintenance of Existence and Property | 21 |
10. | Management of Mining Operations | 22 |
11. | Insurance Matters | 24 |
12. | Security | 25 |
13. | Representations and Warranties of the Hycroft Parties | 25 |
14. | Indemnities | 25 |
15. | Guaranteed Obligations | 26 |
16. | Term | 28 |
17. | Transfers | 28 |
18. | Transfer Rights of the Payee | 28 |
19. | Governing Law | 29 |
20. | Notices | 29 |
21. | General Provisions | 30 |
i
Table of Contents
(continued)
SCHEDULES:
1 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
2 – PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES
3 – REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE HYCROFT PARTIES
4 – FORM OF ROYALTY DEED AND MEMORANDUM OF ROYALTY AGREEMENT
ii
ROYALTY AGREEMENT
ROYALTY AGREEMENT dated [●], 2020.
BETWEEN:
MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION, a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware (“Parent”)
- and -
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC., a corporation existing under the laws of Nevada (the “Owner”)
- and -
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (CO) INC., a corporation existing under the laws of Ontario (the “Payee”)
WHEREAS:
(A) | The Owner, which is an indirect wholly-owned Subsidiary of the Parent, owns and has the right to explore, develop, operate and mine 100% of the Property. |
(B) | The Owner has agreed to create, grant and convey the Royalty to the Payee on the terms and conditions described herein. |
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. | Definitions |
For the purposes of this Agreement (including the recitals), unless the context otherwise requires, each of the following terms shall have the meaning given to it, as set out below, and grammatical variations of any such term shall have a corresponding meaning:
“Abandonment Property” has the meaning set out in Section 1.4(iv).
“Additional Rights” means all assets located on or at or used in connection with the Property or to mine the Precious Metals from the Property as well as all Precious Metals, Authorizations, Other Rights, tailings, fixtures, mines, facilities, equipment and inventory, existing or to be developed, constructed, and operated at or in respect of the Property with respect to the Project, including infrastructure assets, tailings management facilities and other plants.
“Affiliate” means, with respect to any Person, any other Person which directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such Person. For the purposes of this definition and the definition of “Subsidiary”, “control” (including, with correlative meanings, the terms “controlled by” and “under common control with”), as applied to any Person, means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of that Person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise.
- 2 - |
“Agreement” means this Royalty Agreement and all attached schedules, as such may be amended, restated, modified or superseded from time to time in accordance with the terms hereof.
“Allied” means Allied VGH Inc., a Nevada corporation.
“Allowable Deductions” has the meaning set out in Section 1.5(ii).
“Annual Forecast Report” means a written report, in relation to a fiscal year, with respect to the Project, including with reasonable detail a forecast, based on the current development or mine plan as applicable, of the estimated quantity of Precious Metals expected to be produced during such fiscal year on a monthly basis and over the remaining life of the mine on a year-by-year basis, including:
(a) | the amount and a description of planned operating and capital expenditures; |
(b) | grade of Precious Metals to be mined; and |
(c) | with respect to the processing facilities, the grade of Precious Metals to be processed; expected recoveries for gold and silver; and doré weight and gold and silver grade. |
“Annual Operational Report” means a written report in relation to a fiscal year with respect to the Project, to be prepared by or on behalf of the Owner, which shall include all of the information pertaining to the construction, commissioning or operations of the Project contained in annual reports prepared and provided to the board of directors of any of the Hycroft Entities and, to the extent not contained in such reports, will also contain, for such year:
(a) | grade of Precious Metals mined; |
(b) | with respect to the processing facilities, recoveries for gold and silver; and doré weight and gold and silver grade; |
(c) | the number of ounces of Precious Metals contained in the material processed during such year, but not delivered to a Payor by the end of such year; |
(d) | the number of ounces of Precious Metals produced and delivered to and paid for by a Payor, and the names and addresses of each such Payor; |
(e) | the payment to the Payee and/or estimated payment to the Payee with respect to Precious Metals referred to in subsection (b) on account of the Royalty; |
(f) | a reconciliation between any estimated payment specified in an Annual Operational Report pursuant to subsection (e) for a preceding year and the final payment; |
(g) | the amount and a description of operating and capital expenditures; |
(h) | a statement setting out the current estimated mineral reserves and mineral resources balances (by category) with notes on the assumptions used, including cut-off grade, metal prices and metal recoveries; |
- 3 - |
(i) | a review of the development and operating activities, production volumes for the year and a report on any material issues or departures from that contemplated by the Annual Forecast Report, as applicable as of the first day of the fiscal year; |
(j) | variances from projected operating and capital expenditures and any actual or expected adverse impact on development or production or recovery of Precious Metals, whether as to quantity or timing, together with the details of the plans to resolve or mitigate such matters; |
(k) | if applicable, the percentage completion compared to the initial development plan of the major elements of construction and the anticipated date of commencement of commercial production, if it has not yet then occurred; and |
(l) | details of any material health or safety violations and/or material violations of any Applicable Laws (including Environmental Laws). |
“Applicable Law” means any law (including common law and equity), any domestic or foreign constitution or any federal, provincial, territorial, state, municipal, county or local statute, law, ordinance, code, rule, regulation, Order (including any securities laws or requirements of stock exchanges and any consent decree or administrative Order), or Authorization of a Governmental Body in any case applicable to any specified Person, property, transaction or event, or any such Person’s property or assets.
“Authorization” means any authorization, approval, consent, concession, exemption, license, lease, grant, permit, franchise, right, privilege or no-action letter from any Governmental Body having jurisdiction with respect to any specified Person, property, transaction or event, or with respect to any of such Person’s property or business and affairs (including any zoning approval, mining permit, development permit or building permit) or from any Person in connection with any easements, contractual rights or other matters.
“Business Day” means any day other than Saturday, Sunday or a statutory holiday when banks are not open in Toronto, Ontario, Winnemucca, Nevada, Salt Lake City, Utah and Denver, Colorado.
“Cash Consideration” means $30,000,000.
“Contaminant” means any solid, liquid, gas, odor, heat, sound, vibration, radiation, or combination of any of them, that does or is reasonably expected to:
(a) | impair the quality of the Environment for any use that can be made of it; |
(b) | injure or damage property or plant or animal life; |
(c) | adversely affect the health of any individual; |
(d) | impair the safety of any individual; |
(e) | render any plant or animal life unfit for use by man; or |
(f) | create a liability under any Environmental Law; |
- 4 - |
and includes any “contaminant” within the meaning ascribed to such term in any Environmental Law.
“Credit Agreement” means that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of October 4, 2019 between Hycroft Mining Corporation, the Owner, Allied, the Lender and Sprott Resource Lending Corp., as assigned by Hycroft Mining Corporation to the Parent and as such may be amended, supplemented, restated, modified or superseded from time to time.
“Deductions” means any and all smelting, refining, treatment and other charges, penalties, insurance, deductions, transportation, settlement, financing, price participation charges and/or other charges, penalties, deductions, set-offs, Taxes and expenses pertaining to and/or in respect of the operation of the Project, the Property, the Minerals therefrom and the calculation or determination of the payments on account of the Royalty (or payments in lieu thereof).
“Deed of Trust” means the deed of trust evidencing the Payee’s security interest and first priority lien on the Property, subject to Permitted Encumbrances.
“Designated Jurisdiction” means Canada, the United States of America or such other location as may be agreed between the Parent and the Payee.
“Documents” means collectively this Agreement, the Deed of Trust, the Royalty Deed and any other agreements or documents, whether now or hereafter existing, executed or delivered in connection with this Agreement or any amendment thereto, and any amendments, supplements, modifications, renewals or extensions of any of the foregoing documents.
“Effective Date” means the date on which all of the conditions set forth in Section 1.4(i) have been satisfied or waived by the Payee in writing and the Owner has received the Cash Consideration as contemplated in Section 1.4(i).
“Encumbrance” means any mortgage, deed of trust, pledge, hypothecation, assignment, deposit arrangement, encumbrance, lien (statutory or other), charge, security interest, priority or other security agreement, preferential arrangement or encumbrance of any kind or nature whatsoever, including any conditional sale or other title retention agreement or the interest of a lessor under a capital lease or finance obligation (or any similar arrangement) or prior claims or royalties of any nature whatsoever, whether registered or recorded or unregistered or unrecorded.
“Environment” means the ambient air, all layers of the atmosphere, surface water, underground water, all land (surface and underground), all living organisms and the interacting natural systems that include components of air, land, water, organic and inorganic matter and living organisms, and includes indoor and underground spaces.
“Environmental Laws” means any Applicable Law relating to the Environment, occupational or mine health or safety, industrial hygiene, product liability or any past, present or future activity, event or circumstance in respect of any Hazardous Materials (including the use, handling, transportation, production, disposal, discharge or storage thereof or the terms of any Authorization issued in connection therewith) or the environmental conditions on, under or about any real property (including soil, groundwater and indoor, underground and ambient air conditions).
- 5 - |
“Excluded Taxes” with respect to the Payee or any other recipient of any Royalty or payment or transfer of property of any kind under this Agreement:
(g) | any Taxes imposed on or measured by such recipient’s net income, net profits, or capital gains, and any branch profits taxes or franchise or capital Taxes imposed in lieu of or in addition to overall net income or profits Taxes, as a result of a present or former connection between such recipient and the jurisdiction (or any political subdivision thereof) of the Governmental Body imposing such Tax (other than any connection arising solely from such recipient having executed, delivered, enforced, become a party to, performed its obligations under, or made or received payments under this Agreement); |
(h) | any Taxes which arise because of a change in the Payee or any other recipient or any change in the jurisdiction in which the Payee or any other recipient is resident or incorporated but only to the extent such Taxes resulting from the change would result in greater payments by the Owner pursuant to Section 1.1 hereof; |
(i) | any Taxes which arise by reason of the Payee, or any other recipient, receiving the Royalty in a jurisdiction other than a Designated Jurisdiction but only to the extent that such Taxes arising as result of receiving the Royalty in such jurisdiction instead of a Designated Jurisdiction results in greater payments by the Owner pursuant to Section 6 hereof; or |
(j) | any Taxes imposed on amounts payable to the Payee or any other recipient under the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. |
“Governmental Body” means the government of Canada, the United States of America or any other nation, or of any political subdivision thereof, whether state, provincial or local, and any agency, authority, instrumentality, regulatory body, court, arbitrator or arbitrators, tribunal, central bank or other entity exercising executive, legislative, judicial or arbitral, taxing, regulatory or administrative powers or functions (including any applicable stock exchange).
“Guaranteed Obligations” has the meaning set out in Section 1.10(i).
“Guarantor” has the meaning set out in Section 1.10(i).
“Hazardous Materials” means any pollutant or Contaminant, including any hazardous, dangerous, registrable or toxic chemical, material or other substance within the meaning of any Environmental Law.
“Hedging Activities” means any and all activities by which a Hycroft Entity sells or disposes of Precious Metals by entering into off-take agreements or engaging in any commodity futures trading, options trading, metals trading, or sales or dispositions of Precious Metals, in each case for other than spot market prices for Precious Metals produced from the Property, or any combination thereof, and any other similar hedging transactions or arrangements.
“Hycroft Entities” means the Parent and the Owner and each of their Affiliates from time to time.
“Hycroft Parties” means the Parent and the Owner.
“LBMA” means the London Bullion Market Association.
“Lender” means Sprott Private Resource Lending II (Collector), LP.
“Losses” means any and all damages, claims, losses, lost profits, liabilities, fines, injuries, costs, penalties and expenses (including reasonable legal fees).
- 6 - |
“Material Adverse Effect” means any change, event, occurrence, condition, circumstance, effect, fact or development that has, or could reasonably be expected to have, a material and adverse effect on:
(k) | the Property (including the ability of the Hycroft Entities to construct, develop or operate the Project substantially in accordance with the development or mine plan, as applicable, for the Project in effect at the time of the occurrence of the Material Adverse Effect); |
(l) | the ability of any Hycroft Party to perform its obligations under this Agreement; or |
(m) | the legality, validity, binding effect or enforceability of this Agreement or the rights and remedies of the Payee under this Agreement. |
“Minerals” means any and all metals, minerals and mineral rights of every nature and kind, including metals, precious metals, base metals, gems, diamonds, industrial minerals, commercially valuable rock, aggregate, clays, sands and diatomaceous earth, hydrocarbons, oil, gas, coal and other materials in whatever form or state which are mined, excavated, extracted, recovered in soluble solution or otherwise recovered or produced from the Property.
“Monthly Average Gold Price” means, for any given calendar month, the monthly average of the daily afternoon (PM) per ounce LBMA Gold Price as quoted in United States dollars by LBMA (currently in partnership with ICE Benchmark Administration) for Refined Gold for such month, calculated by dividing the sum of all such quotations during such month by the number of such quotations; provided that, if for any reason the LBMA is no longer in operation or if the price of Refined Gold is not calculated on behalf of or confirmed, acknowledged by, or quoted by the LBMA, the Monthly Average Gold Price shall be determined by reference to the price of Refined Gold determined in the manner endorsed by the LBMA and World Gold Council, failing which the Monthly Average Gold Price will be determined by reference to the price of Refined Gold on a commodity exchange mutually acceptable to the Parent and the Payee, acting reasonably.
“Monthly Average Silver Price” means, for any given calendar month, the month average of the daily per ounce LBMA Silver Price as quoted in United States dollars by LBMA (currently in partnership with CME Group and Thomson Reuters) for Refined Silver for such month, calculated by dividing the sum of all such quotations during such month by the number of such quotations; provided that, if for any reason the LBMA is no longer in operation or if the price of Refined Silver is not calculated on behalf of or confirmed, acknowledged by, or quoted by the LBMA, the Monthly Average Silver Price shall be determined in the manner endorsed by the LBMA, failing which the Monthly Average Silver Price will be determined by reference to the price of Refined Silver on a commodity exchange mutually acceptable to the Parent and the Payee, acting reasonably.
“Monthly Operational Report” means a written report in relation to a calendar month (or otherwise, as set forth below) with respect to the Project, to be prepared by or on behalf of the Owner for each month, which shall include all of the information contained in the monthly operating reports for the month prepared and provided to the board of directors of any of the Hycroft Entities and, to the extent not contained in such reports, will also contain, for such month:
(n) | grade of Precious Metals mined; |
(o) | with respect to the processing facilities, recoveries for gold and silver; and doré weight and gold and silver grade; |
- 7 - |
(p) | the number of ounces of Precious Metals contained in the material processed during such month, but not delivered to a Payor by the end of such month; |
(q) | the number of ounces of Precious Metals produced and delivered to a Payor, and the names and addresses of each such Payor; |
(r) | the payment to the Payee and/or estimated payment to the Payee with respect to Precious Metals referred to in subsection (b) on account of the Royalty; |
(s) | a reconciliation between any estimated payment specified in a Monthly Report pursuant to subsection (e) for a preceding calendar month and the final payment; |
(t) | on a semi- annual (and not monthly basis) any material changes from the most recent production forecasts provided to the Payee; |
(u) | the amount and a description of operating and capital expenditures; and |
(v) | any material changes from the most recent production forecasts provided to the Payee. |
“Monthly Production” means the gross number of payable ounces of Precious Metals in any shipment delivered to and paid for by a Payor during any given calendar month, provided that if delivery and payment are not made in the same calendar month, the Precious Metals shall be deemed to be part of Monthly Production in the calendar month in which the later of (i) delivery and (ii) payment or refiner credit occurs.
“National Instrument 43-101” means National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects of the Canadian Securities Administrators (or any successor instrument, rule or policy).
“Net Smelter Returns” has the meaning set out in Section 1.5(i).
“Obligations” means any and all obligations, debts, liabilities, indebtedness, covenants, royalty payments and duties owing by the Hycroft Parties to the Payee of any kind and description under the Documents, whether direct or indirect, absolute or contingent, due or to become due, now existing or hereafter arising.
“Other Rights” means all licenses, approvals, authorizations, consents, rights (including surface rights, access rights and rights of way), privileges, concessions or franchises held by the Hycroft Entities or required to be obtained from any Person (other than a Governmental Body), for the construction, development and operation of the Project, as such construction, development and operation is contemplated by the current or then applicable development or mine plan, as the case may be.
“Order” means any order, directive, decree, judgment, ruling, award, injunction, direction or request of any Governmental Body or other decision-making authority of competent jurisdiction.
“Owner” has the meaning set out on the first page of this Agreement.
“Parent” has the meaning set out on the first page of this Agreement.
“Parent Securities Documents” has the meaning set out in Section Article XVI of 3.
- 8 - |
“Parties” means the parties to this Agreement and “Party” means any one of the Parties.
“Payee” has the meaning set out on the first page of this Agreement.
“Payor” means the smelter, refiner, processor, purchaser or other recipient of Monthly Production, provided such entity is not a Hycroft Entity.
“Permitted Encumbrances” means the Encumbrances set out in 2.
“Person” means and includes individuals, corporations, bodies corporate, limited or general partnerships, joint stock companies, limited liability companies, joint ventures, associations, companies, trusts, banks, trust companies, Governmental Bodies or any other type of organization or entity, whether or not a legal entity.
“Precious Metals” means gold and silver in whatever form or state, which are mined, excavated, extracted, recovered in soluble solution or otherwise recovered or produced from the Property.
“Project” means the Hycroft gold mine project located at the Property in Humboldt County and Pershing County in the State of Nevada, U.S.A., including mining, development, production, processing, recovery, sale, transportation, storage and delivery operations.
“Property” means all right, title and interest of any of the Hycroft Entities to:
(w) | patented claims, fee title, mineral or mining leases, and unpatented mining and millsite claims and all accessions and successions thereto, whether created privately or through government action, mineral rights and surface rights, whether owned or leased, easements, surface use agreements and any other right, title or interest to use the surface estate, all as more particularly described as well as depicted on the map in 1; |
(x) | to the extent not included in subparagraph (w) above, patented claims, fee title, mineral or mining leases, and unpatented mining and millsite claims and all accessions and successions thereto, whether created privately or through government action, mineral rights and surface rights, whether owned or leased, easements, surface use agreements and any other right, title or interest to use the surface estate, in each case situated within the exterior boundary of the block of claims, accessions and successions referred to in subparagraph (w) above, as more particularly shown as the Hycroft unpatented claims and the Hycroft patented claims depicted in the map in 1; |
(y) | all water, water rights, ditches and ditch rights, reservoirs and storage rights, wells and groundwater rights (whether tributary or nontributary), permits and other evidence of authority, water shares, water contracts, water allotments, and other rights in and to the use of water of any kind or nature, whether like or unlike the foregoing, decreed or undecreed, appurtenant to or historically used on or in connection with the properties and rights referred to in subparts (w) and (x) above, including the water rights described in 1, and all ditches, headgates, outlet structures, measuring devices, pumps, pipelines, sprinkler systems, and other equipment or devices associated with the historical and beneficial use of or otherwise appurtenant to or used in connection with the water rights, and all easements, rights of way, permissions, licenses or other rights associated with the historical and beneficial use of or otherwise appurtenant to or used in connection with any of the water rights or water facilities described herein; and |
- 9 - |
(z) | all Minerals, Authorizations and Other Rights, all other property, stockpiles, tailings, buildings, structures, facilities and fixtures used, affixed or situated thereon, Utility Commitments and other rights or assets in each case relating to the interests referred to in (w), (x) and (y) above. |
“Records” means all of the Hycroft Parties’ present and future books, records and data of every kind or nature, including books of account, purchase and sale agreements, invoices, ledger cards, bills of lading and other shipping evidence, statements, correspondence, memoranda, credit files, electronically stored data and other data, together with the tapes, disks, diskettes, drives and other data and software storage media and devices, file cabinets or containers in or on which the foregoing are stored (including any rights of a Hycroft Party with respect to the foregoing maintained with or by any other Person).
“Refined Gold” means marketable metal bearing material in the form of gold bars or coins that is refined to a minimum 995 parts per 1,000 fine gold.
“Refined Silver” means marketable metal bearing material in the form of silver bars or coins that is refined to a minimum 999 parts per 1,000 fine silver.
“Reduction Right” has the meaning set out in Section 1.3(ii).
“Royalty” has the meaning set out in Section 1.3(i).
“Royalty Deed” has the meaning set out in Section 1.3(i)(1).
“SEC Regulations” means the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Industry Guide 7 or Regulation S-K Subpart 1300 (in effect at such time), as amended or replaced, relating to disclosures for mining registrants.
“Securities Regulatory Authorities” has the meaning set out in 3.
“Solvent” means, when used with respect to a Person, that:
(aa) | the fair saleable value of the assets of such Person is in excess of the total amount of the current value of its liabilities (including for purposes of this definition all liabilities (including loss reserves), whether or not reflected on a balance sheet prepared in accordance with U.S GAAP and whether direct or indirect, fixed or contingent, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed); |
(bb) | such Person is able to pay its debts or obligations in the ordinary course as they mature; |
(cc) | such Person has capital sufficient to carry on its business; and |
(dd) | such Person is not otherwise insolvent as defined by any Applicable Law; |
and “Insolvent” shall have a correlative meaning.
“Subsidiary” means with respect to any Person, any other Person which is controlled directly or indirectly by that Person.
- 10 - |
“Taxes” means all taxes, assessments, rates, levies, royalties, imposts, deductions, withholdings, dues, duties, fees and other charges of any nature, including any interest, fines, penalties or other liabilities with respect thereto, imposed, levied, collected, withheld or assessed by any Governmental Body (of any jurisdiction), and whether disputed or not.
“Transfer”, when used as a verb, means to sell, grant, assign, encumber, hypothecate, pledge or otherwise dispose of or commit to dispose of, directly or indirectly, including through mergers, arrangements, amalgamations, consolidations, asset sales or spin out transactions. When used as a noun, “Transfer” means a sale, grant, assignment, pledge or disposal or the commitment to do any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly, including through mergers, arrangements, amalgamations, consolidations, asset sales or spin out transactions.
“U.S. GAAP” means generally accepted accounting principles in the United States from time to time consistently applied, as recommended by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
2. | Interpretation. |
(a) | Interpretation of Certain Matters. In this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided or unless the context otherwise requires: |
(i) | the terms “Agreement”, “this Agreement”, “the Agreement”, “hereto”, “hereof”, “herein”, “hereby”, “hereunder” and similar expressions refer to this Agreement in its entirety and not to any particular provision hereof; |
(ii) | references to a “Section” or “Schedule” followed by a number or letter refer to the specified Section of or Schedule to this Agreement; |
(iii) | references to a Party in this Agreement mean the Party or its successors or permitted assigns; |
(iv) | the division of this Agreement into articles and sections and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement; |
(v) | the words “including”, “includes” and “include” shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation”; |
(vi) | any time period within which a payment is to be made or any other action is to be taken hereunder shall be calculated excluding the day on which the period commences and including the day on which the period ends; |
(vii) | whenever any payment is required to be made, action is required to be taken or period of time is to expire on a day other than a Business Day, such payment shall be made, action shall be taken or period shall expire on the next following Business Day; |
(viii) | references to agreements and other contractual instruments shall be deemed to include all subsequent amendments and other modifications thereto, but only to the extent such amendments and other modifications are not specifically prohibited by the terms of this Agreement; and |
- 11 - |
(ix) | references to statutes or regulations are to be construed as including all statutory and regulatory provisions consolidating, amending, supplementing, interpreting or replacing the statute or regulation referred to. |
(b) | Currency. All references in this Agreement to currency or to “$”, unless otherwise expressly indicated, shall be to United States dollars. |
(c) | Accounting Principles. Where any computation is required to be made, for the purposes of this Agreement, including the contents of any certificate to be delivered hereunder, such computation shall, unless the Parties otherwise agree or the context otherwise requires, be made in accordance with U.S. GAAP applied on a consistent basis. |
(d) | Time of Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. |
3. | Royalty |
(a) | Grant of Royalty. |
(i) | Effective as of the Effective Date, the Owner hereby creates, grants and conveys to the Payee, and agrees to pay to the Payee, a perpetual royalty (the “Royalty”) in the amount of 1.50% of Net Smelter Returns, payable on a monthly basis determined in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, in consideration of the Cash Consideration which shall be paid by the Payee to the Owner by wire transfer to the same account specified in the Borrowing Notice for the First Tranche Advance (as defined in the Credit Agreement) delivered pursuant to the Credit Agreement. The Owner shall evidence the grant of the Royalty to the Payee through a form of deed substantially in the form attached hereto as Schedule D and satisfactory to the Payee, acting reasonably (the “Royalty Deed”), which deed shall be recorded against the Property senior to any and all other Encumbrances, including those then existing, other than the Permitted Encumbrances. |
(b) | Royalty Reduction Right. The Owner, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to repurchase a portion of the Royalty (the “Reduction Right”) on the following dates and pursuant to the following terms: |
(i) | On the first anniversary of the Effective Date, the Owner may purchase up to 33.3% of the Royalty at a price calculated as follows: |
First Royalty Repurchase Price = (A x B x C) – (A x D)
where
A = The portion of the Royalty being repurchased on the first anniversary of the Effective Date, up to 33.3%
B = $30,000,000, the amount of the Cash Consideration
C = 1.2
D = The total of all Royalty payments made by the Owner to the Payee hereunder on or before the first anniversary of the Effective Date, including as a result of insurance proceeds received by the Payee pursuant to Section 1.3(vi), in respect of the portion of the Royalty being repurchased on the first anniversary
If the Owner desires to exercise the Reduction Right provided in this Section 1.3(ii)(1), the Owner shall deliver to the Payee written notice of the portion of the Royalty to be repurchased (item A above) and the estimated First Royalty Repurchase Price as calculated hereunder and subject to adjustment for any Royalty payments made by the Owner to the Payee between the date of such notice by the Owner and the first anniversary of the Effective Date, such notice to be delivered to Payee no later than 45 days prior to the first anniversary of the Effective Date. Following receipt of such notice, on the first anniversary of the Effective Date Owner shall pay to Payee the First Royalty Repurchase Price (adjusted as contemplated above) by wire transfer to an account to be designated by the Payee and notified to the Owner in writing at least one Business Day prior to the first anniversary of the Effective Date, the Royalty under this Agreement shall be reduced accordingly and Owner and Payee shall sign an amendment to the Royalty Deed reducing the amount of the Royalty as provided in this Section 1.3(ii)(1), which amendment shall be recorded against the Property.
- 12 - |
(ii) | On the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the Owner may purchase any remaining portion of the Royalty the Owner could have purchased pursuant to Section 1.3(ii)(1), at a price calculated as follows: |
Second Royalty Repurchase Price =
(A x B x C) – (A x D)
where
A = The portion of the Royalty being repurchased on the second anniversary of the Effective Date, not previously repurchased pursuant to Section 1.3(ii)(1)
B = $30,000,000, the amount of the Cash Consideration
C = 1.4, the repurchase premium on the second anniversary of the Effective Date
D = The total of all Royalty payments made by the Owner to the Payee hereunder on or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date, including as a result of insurance proceeds received by the Payee pursuant to Section 1.3(vi), in respect of the portion of the Royalty being repurchased on the second anniversary
In the event Owner desires to exercise the Reduction Right provided in this Section 1.3(ii)(2), then Owner shall deliver to the Payee written notice of the portion of the Royalty to be repurchased (item A above) and the estimated Second Royalty Repurchase Price as calculated hereunder and subject to adjustment for any Royalty payments made by the Owner to the Payee between the date of such notice by the Owner and the second anniversary of the Effective Date, such notice to be delivered to Payee no later than 45 days prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date. Following receipt of such notice, on the second anniversary of the Effective Date Owner shall pay to Payee the Second Royalty Repurchase Price by wire transfer to an account to be designated by the Payee and notified to the Owner in writing at least one Business Day prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date, the Royalty shall be reduced accordingly and Owner and Payee shall sign an amendment to the Royalty Deed reducing the amount of the Royalty as provided in this Section 1.3(ii)(2), which amendment shall be recorded against the Property.
- 13 - |
(c) | Time and Manner of Payment. The Payee shall receive payments of the Royalty as a cash payment. The Owner shall pay the Royalty, or the applicable portion thereof, in cash within 10 days of the last day of such month. Payments shall be made by wire transfer to an account to be designated by the Payee and notified to the Owner at least one Business Day prior to the payment date. For greater certainty, the Payee shall not be responsible for, and all Royalty payments shall be made free of, any Deductions, all of which shall be for the account of the Owner, except as specifically provided for in Sections 1.3 and 1.5. |
(d) | Late Charge. If the payment of the Royalty in respect of Monthly Production in a particular month is not made within 30 days after the last day of such month, the Payee may give the Owner written notice of such default. Unless the Payee shall have received such payment within five days of receipt of such notice an additional cash sum equal to 10% of the amount of the delinquent payment (the “late charge”) shall be payable to the Payee, plus interest on the delinquent payment and the late charge at the rate of 10% per annum, which shall accrue from the day the delinquent payment was due to the date of payment of the Royalty, late charge and accrued interest in full. |
(e) | Royalty Statements. Each payment of the Royalty shall be accompanied by a detailed statement explaining the manner in which the payment was calculated and shall also include the following information: |
(i) | settlement ounces of all Monthly Production; |
(ii) | the prices used for the calculation of the Royalty; |
(iii) | any Allowable Deductions applied to the Royalty; |
(i) | other Deductions, if any, by a Payor; |
(ii) | any other pertinent information in sufficient detail to explain the calculation of the payment; and |
(iii) | such other information as the Payee may reasonably request. |
Such statement shall be accompanied by copies of the relevant settlement sheets from a Payor and invoices for all Allowable Deductions applied to the Royalty. Such statement shall be deemed conclusively correct if the Payee has not objected to it in writing within 24 months after receipt thereof.
(f) | Insurance Proceeds. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, if the Hycroft Entities receive insurance proceeds for any Precious Metals that are lost or damaged, the Owner shall pay to the Payee, in lieu of the payment of the Royalty in respect of such Precious Metals that were lost or damaged, a percentage, equal to the amount of the Royalty on the date such insurance proceeds are received, of the gross insurance proceeds which are received by the Hycroft Entities for such Precious Metals. The Owner shall pay such amount in cash within 10 days of any Hycroft Entity receiving such insurance proceeds in cash by wire transfer to an account to be designated by the Payee and notified to the Owner in writing at least three Business Days prior to the payment date. The amount of gross proceeds received by the Hycroft Entities on account of the lost or damaged Precious Metals shall be conclusively determined by the insurance settlement documents. |
- 14 - |
(g) | Hedging Activities. All profits and losses resulting from the Hycroft Parties entering into any Hedging Activities are specifically excluded from calculations of the Royalty pursuant to this Agreement. All Hedging Activities entered into by the Hycroft Entities and all profits or losses associated therewith, if any, shall be solely for the account of the Hycroft Parties. The Royalty payable on Precious Metals subject to Hedging Activities shall be determined in the same manner as provided in Sections 1.3 and 1.5, with the understanding that the Precious Metals subject to Hedging Activities shall be deemed to be part of Monthly Production, with the Monthly Average Gold Price or Monthly Average Silver Price, as applicable, for such month being used in the calculation of the Royalty. |
(h) | Nature of Interest. The Parties further agree as follows: |
(i) | the Parties agree that the Royalty is intended to be an interest in real property and constitutes the grant of a vested present interest in the Property and a covenant running with the land and all successions thereof, whether created privately or through government action. The Royalty shall be applicable to the Property and binding upon the Owner and the successors and assigns of the Property; |
(i) | the Payee shall have all of the rights and incidents of ownership of a non-participating royalty owner, which incidents are covenants running with the Property and include: (a) the ownership of the non-participating royalty interests which are interests in real property; (b) the right to receive, free of expenses other than those deductible in the calculation of Net Smelter Returns, the Royalty payments; and (c) the obligation of the Owner, its successors or assigns, to make the Royalty payments, which obligation shall run with the land. The Payee, however, shall not have or claim any incidents of the fee simple ownership in the Property, which incidents include: (a) the right to enter, explore, develop or mine the claims; (b) the right to execute leases, operating agreements, or similar instruments with respect to the Property; (c) the right to share in bonus payments made as the consideration for the execution of leases or other instruments; and (d) except as expressly provided herein, the right to participate in any manner in the decisions concerning, or the conduct of, operations on the Property; |
(ii) | the Royalty shall attach to any amendments, relocations or conversions of any mining claim, license, lease, concession, permit, patent or other tenure comprising the Property, or to any renewals or extensions thereof. If the United States establishes a leasing system or other system of tenure for lands or minerals now subject to location under applicable mining laws, and if the new system gives the Owner an election to acquire rights under the new system in exchange for or in modification of property rights comprising part of the Property, this Agreement and the Royalty shall extend to the lease or other rights granted by the new system in exchange for such property rights included in the Property; and |
- 15 - |
(i) | the Payee’s interest in Precious Metals on account of the Royalty shall become the property of the Payee at the time of production of Precious Metals and shall be held by the Owner in trust for the Payee until paid to the Payee. |
4. | Payment of Cash Consideration |
(a) | Subject to the conditions set forth in this Section 1.4, in consideration for the creation, grant and conveyance of the Royalty under and pursuant to Section 1.3(i)(1) of this Agreement, the Payee hereby agrees to pay and deliver to the Owner on the Effective Date, the Cash Consideration. |
(b) | Conditions to Payment of the Cash Consideration. The obligation of the Payee to pay the Cash Consideration to the Owner shall be subject to the following: |
(i) | all conditions precedent to the funding of the First Tranche Advance under the Credit Agreement shall have been satisfied or waived by the Lender in writing; |
(ii) | the Payee shall have received an original copy of the Documents, duly executed by each applicable Hycroft Party; |
(iii) | all of the representations and warranties made by the Hycroft Parties pursuant to 3 shall be true and accurate in all respects as if made on and as of the Effective Date; |
(iv) | no Material Adverse Effect shall have occurred and be continuing; |
(v) | the Hycroft Parties shall have completed to the satisfaction of the Payee the registration or recording of the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust in the recorder’s offices in Humboldt County, Nevada and Pershing County, Nevada; |
(vi) | The Parent shall have delivered to the Payee: |
(A) | an up to date corporate structure chart and business description for the Hycroft Entities; |
(B) | a favorable legal opinion, in form, substance and detail satisfactory to the Payee, acting reasonably, pertaining to the (1) legal status of the Hycroft Parties, (2) power and authority of the Hycroft Parties to execute, deliver and perform under the Documents, (3) authorization, execution and delivery of the Documents, and (4) enforceability of the Documents; and |
(C) | a favorable title opinion, in form, substance and detail satisfactory to the Payee, confirming the Owner’s title in and to the Property and that there are no Encumbrances except for Permitted Encumbrances with respect to the Property; |
(vii) | The Parent shall have provided to the Payee releases, discharges and postponements (in registrable form where appropriate) in respect of Encumbrances affecting the Property that are not Permitted Encumbrances; |
- 16 - |
(viii) | no provision of Applicable Laws or any Governmental Body having competent jurisdiction shall prohibit the closing for the Royalty or adversely affect in any material respect the Payee’s rights or benefits under this Agreement, and no judgment, injunction, order or decree issued by any Governmental Body having competent jurisdiction shall prohibit the closing or adversely affect in any material respect the Payee’s rights or benefits under this Agreement or the other Documents; |
(ix) | the Owner shall have delivered or paid to the Payee any and all amounts owing pursuant to this Agreement at such time; and |
(x) | the Payee shall have received a certificate signed by an authorized senior officer of the Parent confirming the matters set forth in clauses (3) through (9) above. |
(c) | Obligation to Satisfy Conditions. The Hycroft Parties shall use all commercially reasonable efforts and take all commercially reasonable action as may be necessary or advisable to satisfy and fulfill all the conditions set forth in this Section 1.4 as soon as practicable. The Payee shall co-operate with the Hycroft Parties in exchanging such information and providing such assistance as may be reasonably required in connection with the foregoing. |
(d) | Waiver of Conditions. Each of the conditions set forth in Section 1.4(ii) is for the exclusive benefit of the Payee, and may be waived by the Payee in writing, in its sole discretion in whole or in part. |
5. | Calculation of Net Smelter Returns |
(a) | Net Smelter Returns. “Net Smelter Returns” for any given calendar month means the amount determined by the following formula: |
(A x B) – C
where
“A” is the Monthly Production;
“B” is (i) in the case of gold, the Monthly Average Gold Price; or (ii) in the case of silver, the Monthly Average Silver Price; and
“C” is Allowable Deductions.
(b) | Allowable Deductions. For the purposes of calculating Net Smelter Returns, “Allowable Deductions” shall mean the following Deductions (without duplication), but only if and to the extent actually incurred and paid by the Hycroft Entities in respect of the Monthly Production: |
(i) | in the case of Precious Metals shipped from the Property in the form of doré, slag and loaded carbon: |
(A) | charges and costs, if any, for transportation and insurance of doré from the Project’s final mill or other final processing plant to places where such doré is refined (including loading, freight, insurance, security, surveyor fees, handling fees, port fees, demurrage, and forwarding expenses incurred by reason of or in the course of transportation); and |
- 17 - |
(B) | charges imposed by the refiner for refining doré into Refined Gold or Refined Silver, as applicable; |
and, for greater certainty, no deductions of the type referred to in (A) or (B) in this clause (i) shall be applicable in the case of Precious Metals which are shipped from the Property other than in the form of doré, slag and loaded carbon; and
(ii) | in the case of cash payments pursuant to Section 1.3(iii), actual selling, marketing and brokerage costs of Refined Gold and Refined Silver, as applicable, |
provided that if Precious Metals are processed on or off the Property in facilities owned or controlled, in whole or in part, by a Hycroft Entity, Allowable Deductions will not include any Deductions that are in excess of those that would have been incurred and have been deductible under this Agreement had such processing been carried out at facilities not owned or controlled by a Hycroft Entity then offering comparable services for comparable products on prevailing terms.
(c) | Processing Prior to Final Treatment. For greater certainty, if the Hycroft Entities ship Precious Metals for processing or beneficiation at a facility prior to final treatment, no deductions for transportation of the Precious Metals to or the processing of the Precious Metals at the facility will apply (including any deduction for toll milling). |
(d) | Provisional Settlement. Where the Hycroft Entities receive any payment for Monthly Production from a Payor on a provisional basis, the amount of the Royalty payable shall be based on the gross number of ounces of Precious Metals credited by such provisional settlement, but shall be adjusted as between the Owner and the Payee to account for the quantity of Precious Metals established by final settlement with a Payor. |
6. | Taxes |
(a) | Taxes Payable by Hycroft Parties. Except as required by Applicable Law or expressly contemplated herein, all payments on account of the Royalty and any other payment or transfer of property of any kind made under this Agreement to the Payee shall be made free and clear and without any present or future deduction, withholding, charge or levy on account of Taxes, except Excluded Taxes, without setoff or counterclaim. The Owner shall be liable for all such Taxes directly or indirectly imposed on the Payee, except Excluded Taxes, and shall indemnify and save the Payee harmless from any such Taxes imposed on the Payee. |
(b) | Gross-up. All Taxes, if any, except Excluded Taxes, as are required by Applicable Law to be so deducted, withheld, charged or levied by the Owner on any such payment, shall be paid by the Owner paying to the Payee or on its behalf, in addition to such payment, such additional payments as are necessary to ensure that the net payment received by the Payee (net of any such Taxes, including any Taxes required to be deducted, withheld, charged or levied on any such additional amount) equals the full payment that the Payee would have received had no such deduction, withholding, charge or levy been required. |
- 18 - |
(c) | Withholding by Payee. To the extent required by Applicable Law, the Payee may deduct, withhold, charge or levy, any Taxes imposed by any Governmental Body on the Payee or any of its Affiliates or otherwise required to be withheld by the Payee or any of its Affiliates, in respect of any payment made by the Payee to the Owner or any of its Affiliates under this Agreement. The Payee shall pay the full amount deducted or withheld to the relevant Governmental Body in accordance with Applicable Law. |
(d) | Documentation. The Payee shall deliver to the Owner, at the time or times reasonably requested by the Owner, such properly completed and executed documentation reasonably requested by the Owner as will permit the Owner to determine whether payments to be made under this Agreement may be made without withholding or at a reduced rate of withholding. In addition, the Payee, if reasonably requested by the Owner, shall deliver such other documentation prescribed by Applicable Law or reasonably requested by the Owner as will enable the Owner to determine whether or not the Payee is subject to backup withholding or information reporting requirements. |
(e) | Application to Guarantor. The provisions of Sections 1.1(i) and 1.1(ii) shall also apply to all payments made by the Guarantor to the Payee, whether made pursuant to its guarantee obligations set out in Section 1.10 or otherwise. |
(f) | Cooperation. The Parties agree to reasonably cooperate to: (i) facilitate tax planning with respect to payments on account of the Royalty; (ii) ensure that no more Taxes, duties or other charges are payable with respect to the Royalty than is required under Applicable Law; and (iii) obtain a refund or credit of any Taxes with respect to the Royalty which have been overpaid. |
(g) | Overpayment or Credit. If the Payee or any other recipient of any Royalty or payment or transfer of property of any kind under this Agreement (referred to in this paragraph as an “indemnified party”) determines, in good faith, that it has received a refund or credit of any Taxes in respect of which it has received additional amounts pursuant to Section 1.1(ii), it shall promptly pay to the party that paid such additional amounts (referred to in this paragraph as an “indemnifying party”) an amount equal to such refund or credit (but only to the extent of additional amounts paid under Section 1.1(ii) with respect to the Taxes giving rise to such refund or credit and only to the extent such credit results in a reduction of Taxes otherwise payable by the Payee or such recipient in the taxation year the additional amounts are received), net of all out of-pocket expenses (including Taxes) of such indemnified party and without interest (other than any interest paid by the relevant Governmental Body with respect to such refund). Such indemnifying party, upon the request of such indemnified party, shall repay to such indemnified party the amount paid over pursuant to this Section 1.1(vii) in the event that such indemnified party is required to repay such refund to such Governmental Body. The Parties intend that this Section 1.1(vii) shall prevent the indemnified party from obtaining a windfall as a result of a payment of, or reimbursement for, the indemnified party’s Taxes by the indemnifying party where such Taxes are not ultimately payable by the indemnified party. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 1.1(vii), in no event will the indemnified party be required to pay any amount to an indemnifying party pursuant to this Section 1.1(vii), the payment of which would place the indemnified party in a less favorable net after-Tax position than the indemnified party would have been in if the Tax subject to indemnification and giving rise to such refund had not been deducted, withheld or otherwise imposed and the indemnification payments or additional amounts with respect to such Tax had never been paid. This Section 1.1(vii) shall not be construed to require the Payee to make available its Tax returns (or any other information relating to its Taxes that it deems confidential) to the indemnifying party or any other Person. |
- 19 - |
7. | Reporting Obligations |
(a) | Reports. The Owner shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Payee: |
(i) | within 15 days after the end of each calendar month, a Monthly Operational Report in respect of the Project; |
(ii) | within 45 days after the end of each fiscal year, an Annual Operational Report; and |
(iii) | at least 45 days after the beginning of each fiscal year, an Annual Forecast Report. |
(b) | Geological Reports. Promptly after they become available, the Owner shall promptly deliver to the Payee a copy any technical reports or any updated mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates produced that pertain to the Property. |
(c) | Claims Fee Filings and Payment Receipts. By no later than the earlier of 9:00 am (Toronto time) (i) five days following payment by the Owner of the annual maintenance fee for all unpatented mining claims within the Property and (ii) on August 27, in each calendar year, the Owner shall deliver to the Payee documentation of acknowledgement by the United States Bureau of Land Management that the annual maintenance fee for all unpatented mining claims within the Property have been paid, and copies of the Affidavit and Notice of Intent to Hold Claims recorded in the State of Nevada with respect to the Property. |
(d) | Development and Mine Plans. The Owner shall promptly deliver to the Payee a copy of the current development plan or mine plan, as applicable, for the Project and a new copy thereof promptly upon any material amendment thereto. |
(e) | Other Notices. The Owner shall deliver to the Payee: |
(i) | promptly after the Owner has knowledge or becomes aware thereof, written notice of all material actions, suits and proceedings before any Governmental Body or arbitrator, pending or threatened, against or directly affecting the Project, the Property and the Additional Rights including any actions, suits, claims, notices of violation, hearings, investigations or proceedings with respect to the ownership, use, maintenance and operation of the Property and the Additional Rights, including those relating to Environmental Laws; |
(ii) | promptly after the Owner has knowledge or becomes aware thereof, written notice of any other condition or event which has resulted, or that could reasonably be expected to result, in a Material Adverse Effect; and |
(iii) | such other statements, lists of property and accounts, budgets, forecasts, projections, reports, or other information respecting the Project as the Payee may from time to time reasonably request. |
Each notice pursuant to clauses (1) and (2) above shall be accompanied by a written statement by an authorized senior officer of the Owner setting forth all material information relating to the occurrence referred to therein, including any action which the Hycroft Entities have taken or propose to take with respect thereto.
- 20 - |
8. | Records; Audits; Inspections |
(a) | Records. The Owner shall ensure that the Hycroft Entities each keep true, complete and accurate Records of all material operations and activities with respect to the Property, including the mining, treatment, processing, refining, transportation and sale of Minerals and in which complete entries will be made, in accordance with U.S. GAAP applied on a consistent basis. |
(b) | Audits. Upon not less than three Business Days’ notice, the Payee and its authorized representatives shall be entitled, at their own cost and expense, to perform in any 12 month period, one audit or other review and examination of the Records of the Hycroft Parties relevant to the payment of the Royalty pursuant to this Agreement and to otherwise confirm compliance by the Hycroft Parties with the terms of this Agreement. The Owner shall ensure that the Hycroft Parties each provide the Payee with complete access to all the Hycroft Parties’ Records pertaining to the calculation of the Royalty at the Hycroft Parties’ offices during usual business hours. If any such audits reveal a material breach of any provision of this Agreement or that payments on account of the Royalty for any 12 month period have been underpaid by more than 3%, then: (i) the restriction as to only one audit or other review per 12 month period shall be deemed deleted thereafter for a period of two years; and (ii) the Owner shall reimburse the Payee for its costs and expenses incurred in such audit, otherwise all costs and expenses incurred in connection with such audit shall be for the account of the Payee. |
(c) | Inspections. At reasonable times and with the prior consent of the Owner (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed), one time per 12 month period the Payee and its authorized representatives shall have a right of access to all surface and subsurface portions of the Property, to any mill, smelter, concentrator or other processing facility owned or operated by any Hycroft Entity that is used to process Precious Metals and to any related operations of the Hycroft Entities for the purpose of enabling the Payee to monitor compliance by the Hycroft Parties with the terms of this Agreement, as determined by the Payee acting reasonably. The Payee and its authorized representatives shall have the further right to: (i) inspect and take copies of all records and data, whether maintained physically or electronically, pertaining to the Property, mill, smelter, concentrator, other processing facilities and related operations; (ii) take samples from the Property or any stockpile of Precious Metals, any mill, smelter, concentrator or other processing facility and any Payor for purposes of assay verification; and (iii) weigh, or to cause the Hycroft Entities to weigh, all trucks transporting Minerals from the Property to any mill, smelter, concentrator or other processing facility that is used to process Minerals prior to dumping of such ore and immediately following such dumping. If any such inspections reveal a material breach of any provision of this Agreement or that payments on account of the Royalty for any 12 month period have been underpaid by more than 3%, then the restriction as to only one inspection per 12 month period shall be deemed deleted thereafter for a period of two years. |
(d) | Investor Tours. Upon not less than 10 Business Days’ notice to the Owner, and up to two times in any fiscal year, the Payee shall have the right to request, and if approved by the Owner (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed), conduct an investors tour on the Property and any facilities associated therewith, the cost of which will be for the sole account of the Payee. |
- 21 - |
(e) | Technical Reports. If any Hycroft Entity prepares a technical report under National Instrument 43-101 or SEC Regulations (or similar report) in respect of the Property, upon the request of the Payee, the Owner shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cause the author(s) of such report to provide, at the sole cost and expense of the Payee, (i) a copy of such report to be addressed to the Payee or any of its Affiliates, (ii) the relevant certificates and consents of the author(s) required in connection with the filing of and reference to such report to be provided to the Payee or any of its Affiliates, and (iii) such other consents in connection with the use of or reliance upon such report by the Payee or any of its Affiliates from time to time in its public disclosure as may be required by the Payee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Payee or any of its Affiliates is required by Applicable Law to prepare a technical report under National Instrument 43-101 or SEC Regulations (or similar report) in respect of the Property and chooses to prepare its own technical report (or similar report), the Owner shall cooperate with and allow the Payee and its authorized representatives to access technical information pertaining to the Property and complete a site visit at the Property so as to enable the Payee or its Affiliates, as the case may be, to prepare a technical report (or similar report), at the sole cost and expense of the Payee. |
(f) | Additional Requirements. Access to the Property and associated facilities pursuant to Sections 1.3(iii), (iv) and (v) shall be subject to the following: (i) any such access shall be at the sole risk and expense of the Payee, its representatives and its invitees; (ii) any such access shall not unreasonably interfere with the Hycroft Entities’ activities and operations; (iii) the Payee shall comply, and request that its representatives and invitees comply, with the policies and procedures that the Hycroft Entities apply to their own representatives and invitees; (iv) the Payee shall give the relevant Hycroft Entities prompt notice of any injuries, property damage or environmental harm that may occur during such tour; and (v) the Payee shall indemnify the Hycroft Entities from any Losses (excluding loss of profit and consequential or punitive damages) suffered or incurred by any Hycroft Entity as a consequence of injury to the Payee, its representatives or its invitees incurred during such access, provided that the foregoing shall not apply to any Losses to the extent they arise primarily from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of any Hycroft Entity. |
9. | Maintenance of Existence and Property |
(a) | Maintenance of Existence. The Owner shall at all times do or cause to be done all things necessary to maintain its corporate or other entity existence, including without limitation, as and by way of conversion to a limited liability company and to obtain and, once obtained, maintain all Authorizations necessary to carry on its business and own its assets in each jurisdiction in which it carries on business or in which its assets are located. |
(b) | Maintenance of Property. Subject to Section 1.4(iv), the Owner shall at all times do or cause to be done all things necessary to maintain the Property in good standing, including paying or causing to be paid all Taxes owing in respect thereof, performing or causing to be performed all required assessment work thereon, paying or causing to be paid all claim, permit and license maintenances fees in respect thereof, paying or causing to be paid all rents and other payments in respect of leased properties forming a part thereof and otherwise maintaining the Property in accordance with Applicable Laws. |
(c) | Encumbrances. The Owner shall not cause or allow to be registered or otherwise permit to exist any Encumbrance on the Property ranking senior to or equally with the Royalty, Royalty Deed or Deed of Trust other than the Permitted Encumbrances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any Encumbrance ranking senior to or equally with the Royalty, Royalty Deed or Deed of Trust, other than a Permitted Encumbrance, is asserted against the Property, Owner shall promptly, and at its expense, take such reasonable action so as to cause such Encumbrance to be released. |
- 22 - |
(d) | Abandonment. The Owner shall not abandon any unpatented claims comprising part of the Property or any other interest in the Property unless it first complies with this Section 1.4(iv) (provided that in the case of leased properties, the Owner shall only be required to comply with this Section 1.4(iv) to the extent permitted under the applicable lease or sublease). If the Owner wishes to abandon any of the unpatented claims comprising part of the Property or any other interest in the Property (“Abandonment Property”), the Owner shall first give notice of such intention to the Payee at least 60 days in advance of the proposed date of abandonment. If, not less than 15 days before the proposed date of abandonment, the Owner receives from the Payee written notice that the Payee wishes to acquire the Abandonment Property, the Owner shall, without additional consideration, use all reasonable commercial efforts to convey the Abandonment Property in good standing by quit claim deed, without warranty, to the Payee or an assignee thereof, and shall thereafter have no further obligation to maintain title to the Abandonment Property. Payee shall assume all liabilities and obligations with respect to the Abandonment Property. The Owner shall not be liable to the Payee if for any reason the quitclaim cannot be effected pursuant to applicable law or requirements of Governmental Bodies. If the Payee does not give such notice to the Owner within the prescribed period of time, the Owner may abandon the Abandonment Property and shall thereafter have no further obligation to maintain title to the Abandonment Property; provided, however, that if any Hycroft Entity reacquires a direct or indirect interest in any of the Abandonment Property within ten years following such abandonment, the production of Precious Metals from such property shall be subject to the Royalty and this Agreement. The Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Payee of any such reacquisition. |
(e) | Title Opinions. If any Hycroft Entity prepares, or causes to be prepared, any title opinion or report in respect of all or any portion of the Property, the Owner shall promptly deliver a copy of such opinion or report to the Payee. |
(f) | Right of Payee to Cure Defects. The Payee may undertake such investigation of the title and status of the Property as it shall deem necessary. If that investigation should reveal defects in the title, the Owner shall forthwith proceed to cure such title defects to the satisfaction of the Payee. If the Owner fails to do so: (i) the Payee may proceed to cure such title defects; and (ii) any costs and expenses incurred (including attorney’s fees and costs) by the Payee shall be promptly reimbursed by the Owner. |
10. | Management of Mining Operations |
(a) | Operational Decisions. Subject to the provisions of this Section 1.5, all decisions concerning methods, the extent, times, procedures and techniques of any exploration, construction, development and mining operations related to the Property shall be made by the Owner in its sole and absolute discretion. |
(b) | Performance of Mining Operations. The Owner shall ensure that all exploration, construction, development and mining operations and other activities in respect of the Property will be performed in a commercially reasonable manner in compliance with Applicable Laws, Authorizations and Other Rights, and in accordance with good mining, processing, engineering and environmental practices prevailing in the industry and on the same basis as if the Owner retained full economic interest in the Precious Metals. The Owner shall use all commercially reasonable and lawful efforts to obtain and, once obtained, maintain all Authorizations necessary to commence and continue development and mining operations on the Property. The Owner shall use all commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that all Precious Metals from the Property will be processed in a prompt and timely manner. |
- 23 - |
(c) | Maintenance of Mining Rights. Subject to Section 1.4(iv), the Owner shall use all commercially reasonable and lawful efforts to maintain and apply for and obtain any and all available renewals and extensions of the Property, Authorizations, Other Rights and any and all other necessary rights in respect of the Project and, other than as expressly permitted by this Agreement, not abandon any of the Project (including Utility Commitments) or allow or permit any of the Property, Authorizations, Other Rights or such other necessary rights referred to above to terminate or lapse. |
(d) | Compliance with Applicable Laws. The Owner shall comply, and shall cause all operations and activities conducted at, on or in respect of the Project to comply, with all Applicable Laws, all Authorizations and the terms and conditions of Other Rights. |
(e) | Reclamation Obligations. The Owner shall timely and fully perform, pay and observe, or cause to be performed, observed and paid, any and all liabilities and obligations required by any Applicable Laws, Authorizations or the terms and conditions of Other Rights or by any Governmental Body for the reclamation, restoration or closure of any facility or land used in connection with the Hycroft Entities’ operations or activities at, on or in respect of the Property or required under this Agreement. |
(f) | Stockpiling off Property. The Hycroft Entities may temporarily stockpile, store or place Minerals in locations other than the Property provided that the Owner shall at all times do or cause to be done all things necessary to ensure that: |
(i) | such Minerals are appropriately identified as to ownership and origin; |
(ii) | such Minerals are secured from loss, theft, tampering and contamination; |
(iii) | prior to stockpiling, storing or placing such Minerals in locations other than the Property, the applicable Hycroft Entities shall have entered into and recorded in the applicable County a written agreement in recordable form with the property owner where such stockpiling, storage or placement is to occur providing, among other things, that: (i) the Payee’s rights in and to such Minerals pursuant to the Royalty and this Agreement, insofar as they are applicable, shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding their removal from the Property; (ii) the Payee’s rights in and to such Minerals shall be the same as if the Minerals had never been removed from the Property; (iii) the Payee’s rights in and to such Minerals shall have precedence over the rights to the Minerals of said property owner, as well as the creditors of said property owner; (iv) the agreement shall be irrevocable as long as the Minerals, or any part thereof, remain on said property; (v) the Payee shall have substantially similar access rights to said property as provided for in respect of the Property under this Agreement; and (vi) the Payee’s rights in and to the Minerals pursuant to the Royalty and this Agreement shall otherwise be preserved; and |
- 24 - |
(iv) | a security interest in such Minerals shall have been granted to the Payee and recorded, in form and substance satisfactory to the Payee. |
(g) | Commingling. The Owner shall ensure that the Hycroft Entities do not process other minerals through their processing plants, or commingle such other minerals with, Minerals mined, produced, extracted or otherwise recovered from the Property, unless (i) the applicable Hycroft Entity has adopted and employs reasonable practices and procedures for weighing, determining moisture content, sampling and assaying and determining recovery factors (a “Commingling Plan”), such Commingling Plan to ensure the division of other minerals and Minerals for the purpose of determining the quantum of Minerals; (ii) the Payee shall not be disadvantaged as a result of the processing of other minerals in priority to, or concurrently with, Minerals, or the parties, acting reasonably, shall have entered into an agreement to compensate the Payee for any such disadvantage providing for a commensurate royalty or stream interest in such other minerals or another form of compensation (a “Compensation Agreement”); (iii) the Payee has approved the Commingling Plan and, if applicable, the Compensation Agreement, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld; and (iv) the Hycroft Entities keep all books, records, data, information and samples required by the Commingling Plan. The Owner agrees to revisit the Commingling Plan and the Compensation Agreement if the Payee determines that circumstances have changed, in order to ensure that the Commingling Plan continues to provide for the accurate measurement of Minerals and the Compensation Agreement reasonably compensates the Payee for any disadvantage. |
(h) | Waste Materials. All tailings, residues, waste rock, spoiled leach materials, and other waste materials (collectively, “waste materials”) resulting from the Hycroft Entities’ operations and activities at and on the Property shall be the sole property of the Hycroft Entities, but shall remain subject to the Royalty should the same be processed or reprocessed, as the case may be, in the future and result in the production of Precious Metals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Hycroft Entities shall have the right to dispose of waste materials from the Property within or at locations other than the Property and to commingle the same with waste materials from other properties (provided in any case that any sale of waste materials shall be subject to the Royalty). In the event waste materials from the Property are processed or reprocessed, as the case may be, the Royalty payable thereon shall be determined using the best engineering and technical practices then available. |
(i) | Taxes. The Hycroft Entities shall pay, or cause to be paid, all taxes levied, assessed or imposed upon or with respect to the Property or any part thereof; provided, however, the Hycroft Entities shall not be required to pay any such tax if the validity and/or amount thereof is being contested in good faith and by appropriate and lawful proceedings promptly initiated and diligently conducted of which the Hycroft Entities have given prior notice to the Payee and for which appropriate reserves have been established and so long as levy and execution have been and continue to be stayed. If the Hycroft Entities fail to pay or so contest and reserve for such taxes, the Payee may (but shall not be required to) pay the same and invoice the amounts of such payments to the Hycroft Entities for immediate reimbursement. |
11. | Insurance Matters |
(a) | Maintenance of Insurance. The Owner shall ensure that insurance is maintained with reputable insurance companies with respect to Precious Metals that are shipped of such types and in such amounts as is customary in the case of similar operations in the United States of America. |
- 25 - |
(b) | Shipment of Minerals. The Owner shall ensure that each shipment of Precious Metals is adequately insured in such amounts and with such coverage as is customary in the mining industry, until the time that risk of loss and damage for such Precious Metals is transferred to a Payor. |
12. | Security |
(a) | Grant of Security Interest; Deed of Trust. Subject to the Permitted Encumbrances, the Hycroft Parties shall grant to the Payee, on the Effective Date a continuing security interest and a first priority lien on the Property, including all proceeds and products thereof, in order to secure prompt payment of the Obligations and prompt performance by the Hycroft Parties of each and all of their covenants and obligations under the Documents. The Payee’s security interest and first priority lien on the Property shall rank in priority to any security interest or lien granted pursuant to the Credit Agreement or any Facility Document (as defined in the Credit Agreement) and shall be evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Deed of Trust by the Owner, and such other security documents as Payee may reasonably require to give effect to the foregoing. The Owner shall promptly register or record the duly executed Deed of Trust and such other security documents as Payee may reasonably require with all applicable registries or recording offices. |
(b) | Perfection. The Hycroft Parties shall perform all steps reasonably requested by the Payee to perfect, maintain and protect the Payee’s security interest in the Property from and after the Effective Date. |
(c) | Default. All of the Obligations, including those created by this Agreement shall be secured by all the Property. |
13. | Representations and Warranties of the Hycroft Parties |
Each of the Hycroft Parties, jointly and severally, acknowledging that the Payee is entering into this Agreement in reliance thereon, hereby makes the representations and warranties to the Payee as set out in 3.
14. | Indemnities |
(a) | The Hycroft Parties jointly and severally agree to indemnify and save the Payee and its Affiliates and the directors, officers, employees and agents of the foregoing harmless from and against any and all Losses suffered or incurred by any of them as a result of, in respect of, or arising as a consequence of: |
(i) | any breach or inaccuracy of any representation or warranty of the Hycroft Parties contained in this Agreement, including the representations and warranties set forth in 3 hereto, or in any document, instrument or agreement delivered pursuant hereto or thereto; |
(ii) | any breach, including breach due to non-performance, by the Hycroft Parties of any covenant or agreement to be performed by any of the Hycroft Parties contained in this Agreement or in any document, instrument or agreement delivered pursuant hereto or thereto; and |
- 26 - |
(iii) | claims brought by third parties against the Payee and its Affiliates and the directors, officers, employees and agents of the foregoing relating to any work, operation, activities or event on, in or under the Property or the Project or related thereto, |
provided that the foregoing shall not apply to any Losses to the extent they arise from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such indemnified persons.
(b) | This Section 1.9 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. |
15. | Guaranteed Obligations |
(a) | Guarantee. The Parent (in such capacity, the “Guarantor”) does hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee the prompt and complete observance and performance of each and all the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions to be observed or performed by the Owner pursuant to this Agreement (the “Guaranteed Obligations”). The Guarantor shall perform all of the Guaranteed Obligations upon the default or non-performance thereof by the Owner. |
(b) | Continuing Guarantee. The obligations of the Guarantor under this Section 1.10 are continuing, unconditional and absolute and without limitation, will not be released, discharged, limited or otherwise affected by (and the Guarantor hereby consents to or waives, as applicable, to the fullest extent permitted by Applicable Law): |
(i) | any extension, other indulgence, renewal, settlement, discharge, compromise, waiver, subordination or release in respect of any of the Guaranteed Obligations, security, person or otherwise; |
(ii) | any modification or amendment of or supplement to the Guaranteed Obligations, including any increase or decrease in the amounts payable thereunder; |
(iii) | any release, non-perfection or invalidity of any direct or indirect security for any of the Guaranteed Obligations; |
(iv) | any winding-up, dissolution, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization or other similar proceeding affecting the Owner; |
(v) | the existence of any claim, set-off or other rights which the Guarantor or the Owner may have at any time against the Payee; |
(vi) | any invalidity, illegality or unenforceability relating to or against the Owner or any provision of Applicable Law or regulation purporting to prohibit the payment by the Owner of any amount in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations; |
(vii) | any limitation, postponement, prohibition, subordination or other restriction on the rights of the Payee to payment or performance of the Guaranteed Obligations; |
(viii) | any addition of any co-signer, endorser or other guarantor of the Guaranteed Obligations; |
- 27 - |
(ix) | any defense arising by reason of any failure of the Payee to make any presentment, demand for performance, notice of non-performance, protest or any other notice, including notice of acceptance of this Agreement, partial payment or non-payment of any of the Guaranteed Obligations or the existence, creation or incurring of new or additional Guaranteed Obligations; |
(x) | any defense arising by reason of any failure of the Payee to proceed against the Owner or any other Person, to proceed against, apply or exhaust any security held from the Owner or any other Person for the Guaranteed Obligations, to proceed against, apply or exhaust any security held from the Owner or any other Person for the Guaranteed Obligations or to pursue any other remedy in the power of the Payee whatsoever; |
(xi) | any law which provides that the obligation of a guarantor must neither be larger in amount nor in other respects more burdensome than that of the principal obligation or which reduces a guarantor’s obligation in proportion to the principal obligation; |
(xii) | any defense arising by reason of any incapacity, lack of authority or other defense of the Owner or any other Person, or by reason of the cessation from any cause whatsoever of the liability of the Owner or any other Person in respect of any of the Guaranteed Obligations, except as a result of the payment or fulfillment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations, whether by contract, operation of law or otherwise; |
(xiii) | any defense arising by reason of any failure by the Payee to obtain, perfect or maintain a perfected or prior (or any) Encumbrance upon any property of the Owner or any other Person, or by reason of any interest of the Payee in any property, whether as owner thereof or the holder of an Encumbrance thereon, being invalidated, voided, declared fraudulent or preferential or otherwise set aside, or by reason of any impairment by the Payee of any right to recourse or collateral; |
(xiv) | any defense arising by reason of the failure of the Payee to marshal any properties; |
(xv) | any defense based upon or arising out of any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, arrangement, readjustment of debt, liquidation or dissolution proceeding commenced by or against the Owner or any other Person, including any discharge of, or bar against collecting, any of the Guaranteed Obligations, in or as a result of any such proceeding; or |
(xvi) | any other act or omission to act or delay of any kind by the Owner, the Payee or any other circumstance whatsoever, whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing, which might, but for the provisions of this Section 1.10(ii), constitute a legal or equitable discharge, limitation or reduction of the obligations of the Owner or the Guarantor hereunder (other than the payment or performance in full of all of the Guaranteed Obligations). |
To the extent permitted by Applicable Law, the foregoing provisions of this Section 1.10(ii) apply (and the waivers set out therein will be effective) even if the effect of any action (or failure to take action) by the Owner is to destroy or diminish any subrogation rights of the Guarantor or any rights of the Owner and the Guarantor to proceed against the Payee for reimbursement or to recover any contribution from any other Person.
- 28 - |
(c) | Recourse Need Not be Exhausted. The Payee shall not be bound to exhaust its recourse against the Owner or any other Persons or to realize on any securities it may hold in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations before being entitled to payment or performance from the Guarantor under this Section 1.10 and the Guarantor hereby renounces all benefits of discussion and division. |
(d) | Transfers of Guarantor Obligations. The Guarantor may only Transfer all or any part of its obligations set forth in this Section 1.10 pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.12. |
16. | Term |
Subject to Section 1.16(vii), the term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall be perpetual.
17. | Transfers |
(a) | Each of the Hycroft Parties may only Transfer their rights and obligations under this Agreement (including the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust) or in and to the Property, if as a condition to completion of the Transfer (and the release of the Guaranteed Obligations in respect of the transferred obligations), any transferee and its Affiliates shall have first entered into an agreement, in form and substance satisfactory to the Payee, acting reasonably, to be bound by this Agreement and the Royalty Deed (including the provision of a comparable guarantee to that provided by the Parent in this Agreement by any such Affiliates of the transferee). For greater certainty, the Parent shall cause each of the Hycroft Entities that are not parties to this Agreement to comply with the terms of this Section 1.12. The Payee shall promptly negotiate in good faith and settle the form of agreement referenced in this Section 1.12(i) upon the written request of any of the Hycroft Parties. |
(b) | Transfers of Interests in the Parent. For greater certainty, (i) an amalgamation, merger or consolidation of the Parent with or into another body corporate, including by way of a plan of arrangement, or (ii) a transfer of shares of the Parent, including a transfer of all of the shares pursuant to a takeover bid and subsequent acquisition transaction (including a compulsory acquisition) or a plan of arrangement, is not prohibited; provided, however, that in the case of clause (i) any successor entity to the Parent shall have acknowledged in writing to the Payee that it is bound by this Agreement. |
(c) | Effect of Prohibited Transfer. Any Transfer made in violation of this Section 1.12 shall be null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever. Any Hycroft Party that Transfers its Obligations in accordance with Section 1.12(i) shall be released by the Payee from its respective Obligations hereunder, except for any Obligations that remain outstanding or for any rights that have accrued to the Payee prior to such Transfer. |
18. | Transfer Rights of the Payee |
(a) | Transfers. The Payee shall have the right to Transfer or encumber, in whole or in part, its rights and obligations under this Agreement (including the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust) to any Person, without the consent of any Hycroft Party, upon the delivery of notice of such Transfer to the Hycroft Parties. In such a case, provided that such Person has agreed to be bound by such Transferred obligations under this Agreement, the Payee, as applicable, shall be released from such Transferred obligations under this Agreement. |
- 29 - |
(b) | Encumbrances. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement, the Payee shall have the right to Transfer by way of Encumbrance, in whole or in part, its rights and obligations under this Agreement to one or more lenders providing financing to the Payee or any of its Affiliates without notice to, or the consent of, any Hycroft Party. If such transferee enforces such Encumbrance, it will provide notice to the Hycroft Parties and upon delivery of such notice, which notice shall confirm that such transferee agrees to be bound by such transferred obligations under this Agreement, such Transferee shall become a party to this Agreement with all of the rights and obligations of the Payee. |
19. | Governing Law |
This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada. Each of the Parties hereby irrevocably attorns to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of Nevada. Each Hycroft Party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives, to the fullest extent it may legally and effectively do so, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement in any Court of the State of Nevada. Each of the Hycroft Parties hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any forum non conveniens defense to the maintenance of such action or proceeding in any such court. Each Hycroft Party irrevocably consents to service of process in the State of Nevada. Nothing in this Agreement will affect the right of the Payee to serve process in any other manner or in any other jurisdiction permitted by law or to commence suits, actions or legal proceedings in any other jurisdictions.
20. | Notices |
Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sent or delivered to the respective Parties at their respective addresses, or e-mail addresses set forth below (or at or to such other address, or e-mail address as shall be designated by any Party in a written notice to the other Parties):
If to any of the Hycroft Parties:
c/o Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation
8181 E. Tufts Ave.
Suite 510
Denver, CO 80237
Email: Steve.Jones@hycroftmining.com
Attention: Steve Jones,
with a copy to (which copy shall not be deemed to be notice) to:
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP,
Suite 2200
HSBC Building
885 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8
Email: dbudd@casselsbrock.com
Attention: David Budd
and
- 30 - |
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
2 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 1700
Chicago, IL
60602-3801
Email: DStone@nge.com
Attention: David Stone
If to the Payee:
Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc.
200 Bay Street, Suite 2600
Toronto, ON M5J 2J2
Attention: | Chief Financial Officer |
Email: | jgrosdanis@sprott.com |
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP
666 Burrard Street, Suite 2800
Vancouver, BC V6C 2Z7
Attention: | Douglas G. Shields |
Email: | doug.shields@dlapiper.com |
Any notice and communications shall be effective:
(a) | if delivered by hand, sent by certified or registered mail or sent by an overnight courier service, when received; and, provided that if such date is a day other than a Business Day, where the recipient Party is located, then such notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first Business Day, where the recipient Party is located, following the date of such delivery; and |
(b) | if sent by e-mail transmission and successfully transmitted before 5:00 p.m. on a Business Day, where the recipient Party is located, then on that Business Day, and if transmitted after 5:00 p.m. on that day or on a day that is not a Business Day, then on the first Business Day, where the recipient Party is located, following the date of transmission. |
21. | General Provisions |
(a) | Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute all such further instruments and documents and shall take all such further actions as may be necessary to effect the transactions contemplated herein, in each case at the cost and expense of the Party requesting such further instrument, document or action, unless expressly indicated otherwise. |
(b) | Obligations of Hycroft Entities. Each Hycroft Party agrees to take all action necessary to cause each and every other Hycroft Entity that is a Subsidiary of such Hycroft Party to observe, comply with and perform its covenants and obligations in this Agreement. |
- 31 - |
(c) | Memorandum for Recording. The Parties agree that no Party shall record this Agreement in any land records. The Parties agree that the Royalty Deed shall instead be recorded. The costs of preparing and recording the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust shall be at the Owner’s cost and expense. |
(d) | Confidentiality. The Payee shall not, without the express written consent of the Owner, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, disclose any data or information concerning the operations of the Hycroft Entities obtained in connection with this Agreement which is not already in the public domain (the “Confidential Information”); provided, however, the Payee may disclose Confidential Information without the consent of the Owner: (i) if required by Applicable Law or requested by a Government Body having jurisdiction over the Payee or its Affiliates; (ii) to the Payee’s Affiliates and to any representatives, consultants or advisers of the Payee or its Affiliates for the purpose of providing services to the Payee or its Affiliates; and (iii) to any Person to whom the Payee, in good faith, anticipates Transferring an interest in this Agreement as contemplated by Section 1.13(i) or 1.13(ii) and such Person’s Affiliates and the representatives, consultants and advisers of such Person or its Affiliates. In the case of disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) or (iii), the Payee shall be responsible to ensure that the recipient of the Confidential Information does not disclose the Confidential Information to the same extent as if it were bound by the same non-disclosure obligations of the Payee hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Payee shall not be restricted from disclosing the terms of this Agreement or payments on account of the Royalty. For greater certainty, the Payee shall be entitled to disclose publicly data or information concerning the operations of the Hycroft Entities, without the consent of the Owner, once such information has been publicly disclosed by any of the Hycroft Entities. |
(e) | No Partnership. Nothing herein shall be construed to create, expressly or by implication, a joint venture, agency relationship, fiduciary relationship, mining partnership, commercial partnership or other partnership relationship between the Payee and the Hycroft Entities. |
(f) | Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under all Applicable Laws. If, however, any provision of this Agreement shall be prohibited by or invalid under any such Applicable Law in any jurisdiction, it shall, as to such jurisdiction, be deemed modified to conform to the minimum requirements of such Applicable Law, or, if for any reason it is not deemed so modified, it shall be ineffective and invalid only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity without affecting the remaining provisions of this Agreement, or the validity or effectiveness of such provision in any other jurisdiction. |
(g) | Rule Against Perpetuities. If an arbitrator, court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction determines that the term of this Agreement violates the rule against perpetuities, the rule against unreasonable restraints on the alienation of property or any other similar rule, then the term of this Agreement shall automatically be amended to coincide with the maximum term permitted by the rule against perpetuities, the rule against unreasonable restraints on the alienation of property or any other similar rule, as applicable, and this Agreement shall not be terminated solely as a result of such violation. To the extent permitted by Applicable Laws, the Parties irrevocably release and waive the applicability of the rule against perpetuities to the Royalty. Each of the Owner and the Payee agrees and covenants, for itself and its successors and assigns, that it will not commence any action or arbitration proceeding to declare the Royalty ineffective, invalid or void based on the rule against perpetuities, and that it will not in any action or arbitration proceeding commenced by the other Party, or its successors and assigns, as applicable, assert as an affirmative defense against any claim for relief for enforcement of this Agreement that this Agreement is ineffective, invalid or void based on the rule against perpetuities. |
- 32 - |
(h) | Entire Agreement. This Agreement together with the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust reflects the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters set forth herein and supersedes any prior agreements, commitments, drafts, communication, discussions and understandings, oral or written, with respect thereto, including but not limited to the indicative term sheet dated April 15, 2019 issued by Payee to and accepted by the Parent, as amended, modified, supplemented, restated or replaced from time to time. |
(i) | Joint and Several. The covenants, agreements, representations, warranties, and acknowledgments of the Hycroft Parties in this Agreement shall constitute the joint and several covenants, agreements, representations, warranties, and acknowledgments of the Hycroft Parties and shall be read and construed accordingly. |
(j) | Amendments. No amendment to any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and has been signed by the all of the Parties. Any such amendment shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given. |
(k) | Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement, or consent to any departure by any Hycroft Party therefrom, shall be effective unless it is in writing and has been signed by Payee. Any such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given. No failure on the part of Payee to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power or privilege under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, remedy, power or privilege preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege. |
(l) | Specific Performance. Each of the Hycroft Parties acknowledges that any breach of this Agreement may cause the Payee irreparable harm for which damages are not an adequate remedy. The Hycroft Parties agree that, in the event of any such breach, in addition to other remedies at law or in equity that the Payee may have, the Payee shall be entitled to seek specific performance. |
(m) | Binding Effect; No Beneficiaries. The rights and remedies under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights, remedies, powers and privileges that may otherwise be available to Payee. This Agreement is entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties hereto and their successors and assigns, and no other Person (other than the indemnified Persons referred to in Section 1.9) shall be a direct or indirect beneficiary of, or shall have any direct or indirect cause of action or claim in connection with, this Agreement. |
(n) | Costs and Expenses. Each of the Parties shall be responsible for paying all costs and expenses incurred by them, respectively, in connection with the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. |
(o) | Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and such executed counterparts may be delivered by electronic transmission of an authorized signature (including in pdf) and each such counterpart shall be deemed to form part of one and the same document. |
[Signature page follows.]
- 33 - |
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Royalty Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION | ||
By: | ||
Name: | ||
Title: |
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC. | ||
By: | ||
Name: | ||
Title: |
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (CO) INC. | ||
By: | ||
Name: | ||
Title: |
royalty agreement signature page
Schedule A
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
See attached.
-2-
Schedule B
PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES
1. | Encumbrances for taxes, assessments or governmental charges that are not yet delinquent or that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings promptly instituted and diligently conducted. |
2. | Encumbrances imposed by law, such as carriers’, warehousemen’s, landlord’s and mechanics’ liens, in each case, incurred in the ordinary course of business and securing payment of obligations that are not yet delinquent or that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings promptly instituted and diligently conducted. |
3. | Easements, rights of way, zoning ordinances, and other similar land use and environmental regulations. |
4. | Overlaps of unpatented mining claims on patented mining claims, fee lands and other lands withdrawn from mineral entry under the Mining Law of 1872. |
5. | The paramount title of the United States in and the rights of citizens under applicable law to enter on unpatented mining claims. |
6. | Any easement or right-of-way which is not of record or any road which may be proven to be a public road under the Act of July 26, 1866, 12 Stat. 253, 43 USC 932, repealed by the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, P.L. No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2793, or under NRS 405.191 et seq. |
7. | The reservation of water resources by the United States pursuant to Executive Order Public Water Reserve No. 107. |
8. | The reservations in any grants or patents of the United States of any fee lands or patented mining claims. |
9. | Crofoot royalty as described in the Fourth Amendment Agreement dated January 1, 1996 between Daniel M. Crofoot, for himself and as trustee, BlackRock Properties, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and the Owner, being a 4% net profit interest royalty retained by the original owners of the Crofoot property, which is payable to the maximum of $7,600,000. |
10. | Reservation of sulfur on Crofoot patented and unpatented mining claims as described in the Deed of Patented Mining Claims With Reservation of Net Proceeds Royalty and Sulphur Mineral Rights and Deed of Unpatented Mining Claims With Reservation of Net Proceeds Royalty and Sulphur Mineral Rights each dated January 1, 1996. |
11. | Encumbrances granted in favor of the Lender as security for all indebtedness, liabilities and obligations outstanding from time to time pursuant to the Credit Agreement and the other Facility Documents (as defined in the Credit Agreement). |
-2-
12. | Encumbrances granted in favor of the holders of Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes (as defined in the Credit Agreement) as security for all indebtedness, liabilities and obligations outstanding from time to time pursuant to the Exchanged 1.25 Lien Notes. |
Schedule C
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE Hycroft Parties
No specific representation or warranty shall limit the generality or applicability of a more general representation or warranty.
1. | Organization and Powers. Each Hycroft Party is: |
(a) | duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation, and has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver, and perform its obligations under this Agreement; |
(b) | qualified or licensed to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the nature of its business or the nature and location of its assets requires such qualification or licensing except where such failure to qualify or be licensed or in good standing would not have a Material Adverse Effect; and |
(c) | has all requisite power and authority to own and lease its assets and carry on its business. |
2. | Authorization; No Conflict. The execution and delivery by each Hycroft Party of, the performance of its obligations under, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate or other action of such Hycroft Party and do not and will not: |
(a) | violate the terms of the constating documents of such Hycroft Party; |
(b) | conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute a default or an event creating rights of acceleration, termination, modification or cancellation or a loss of rights under (with or without the giving notice or lapse of time or both), any written or oral contract, agreement, license, concession, indenture, mortgage, debenture, note or other instrument to which any Hycroft Entity is a party, subject or otherwise bound (including with respect to its assets) in each case except as would not have a Material Adverse Effect; |
(c) | violate in any material respect any Applicable Law to which any Hycroft Entity is subject or otherwise bound (including with respect to its assets); or |
(d) | except as contemplated by this Agreement, result in, or require, the creation or imposition of any Encumbrance upon or with respect to any of the assets or properties that comprise the Project. |
3. | Solvency. Each Hycroft Party is Solvent and no Hycroft Party will be rendered Insolvent by the execution and delivery of this Agreement. |
4. | Execution; Binding Obligation. This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by each Hycroft Party. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of each Hycroft Party, enforceable against such Hycroft Party in accordance with its terms, except to the extent enforcement may be affected by Applicable Laws and regulations relating to bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency and creditors’ rights and by the availability of injunctive relief, specific performance and other equitable remedies. |
-2-
5. | Consents. No Hycroft Entity is required to give any notice to, make any filing with or obtain any authorization, consent, Order or approval of any Person in connection with the execution, delivery or performance of the obligations of the Hycroft Parties under this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein, except for recordings or filings in connection with the perfection of the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust in favor of the Payee. |
6. | No Defaults. No event has occurred or circumstance exists that (with or without the giving of notice or lapse of time or both) has contravened, conflicted with or resulted in, or may contravene, conflict with or result in, a violation or breach of, or give any Hycroft Entity or any other Person the right to declare a default or exercise any remedy under, or to accelerate the maturity or performance of, or to cancel, terminate or modify, any contract, lease, license, concession, Authorization, agreement, indenture, mortgage, debenture, note, instrument, or Order to which it is a party or by which it or its properties and assets may be bound, and, to the knowledge of each of the Hycroft Parties, each other Person that is party thereto is in compliance in all material respects with the terms and requirements thereof, in each case, except as would not have a Material Adverse Effect. |
7. | Litigation. Save and except for the class action disclosed to the Payee in the Credit Agreement, there are no material actions, suits, investigations, claims or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of each of the Hycroft Parties, threatened against or directly affecting the Owner or the Project by or before any Governmental Body. |
8. | Insurance. The properties, assets and operations of the Owner are insured with reputable insurance companies (not Affiliates of any Hycroft Entity), in such amounts, with such deductibles and covering such risks as is customarily carried by companies engaged in similar businesses and owning similar properties in the localities where the Owner operates. |
9. | Title to Property; Liens. The Owner (i) has good and marketable leasehold title to all leases of real property included within the Property (ii) has good and marketable possessory and record title to all unpatented mining claims and millsite claims included within the Property, except for such claims that are leased to the Owner and are covered under part (i) of this paragraph, (iii) has good and marketable title to such other real property interests included within the Property and not otherwise included under parts (i) and (ii) of this paragraph, and (iv) has good and marketable title to or hold a good and marketable leasehold interest in such properties and assets, which are not real property interests, and comprise part of the Project. Except for Permitted Encumbrances, there are no Encumbrances upon or with respect to any of the properties and assets included in the Property. Without limiting the foregoing: |
(a) | save and except for the Permitted Encumbrances listed in Sections Article 9 and Article 10 of 2, no Person other than the Owner has any rights to participate in or operate the Property and the Project; |
(b) | the Property comprises all of the real property, mineral and surface interests held by the Owner in respect of the Project; |
(c) | the Property constitutes all real property, mineral, surface interests and ancillary rights necessary for, as applicable, the construction, development and mining operations of the Project, as currently operated and substantially in accordance with the current development or mine plan; and |
-3-
(d) | save and except for the Permitted Encumbrances listed in Sections Article 9 and Article 10 of 2, none of the Property or Minerals therefrom are subject to an option, right of first refusal or right, title, interest, reservation, claim, rent, royalty, or payment in the nature of rent or royalty, or right capable of becoming an agreement, option, right of first refusal or right, title, interest, reservation, claim, rent, royalty, or payment in the nature of rent or royalty. |
10. | Maintenance of Property. All mining claim maintenance fees, rentals, royalties, recording fees, taxes and all other amounts have been paid when due and payable and all other actions and all other obligations as are required to maintain the Property have been taken and complied with in all material respects. |
11. | Authorizations. The Owner has obtained or been issued all Authorizations (including environmental Authorizations) and Other Rights (A) which are necessary for the conduct of exploration, development and operating activities as such activities are currently being conducted at or on the Property or in connection with the Project, or (B) the failure of which to be obtained would not have a Material Adverse Effect. There are no facts or circumstances that might reasonably be expected to adversely affect the issuance or obtaining of any Authorizations (including environmental Authorizations) or Other Rights in the ordinary course of business by the time they are necessary for the conduct of exploration and development activities and the eventual commencement and ongoing commercial production at or on the Property or in connection with the Project, as applicable. |
12. | Compliance with Applicable Laws. The Owner and the Property (as and when owned by Owner) are and have been in compliance in all material respects with all Applicable Laws. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Owner and the Property (as and when owned by Owner) are and have been in compliance in all material respects with all applicable Environmental Laws, and there are no actions, suits, claims, notices of violation, hearings, investigations or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of each of the Hycroft Parties, threatened against or affecting any Hycroft Entity with respect to the ownership, use, maintenance and operation of the Property, relating to any applicable Environmental Laws, where any adverse determination with respect thereto or liability imposed therein could have a Material Adverse Effect. |
13. | Subsidiaries. The Owner is a direct, wholly owned Subsidiary of Allied. Allied is a direct, wholly-owned Subsidiary of the Parent. |
14. | No Subordination. There is no agreement, indenture, contract or instrument to which any Hycroft Entity is a party or by which it or any of its properties or assets may be bound that requires the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust to be subordinate to any other Encumbrance on the Property. Upon recording the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust against the Property, the Royalty Deed and Deed of Trust shall be senior to any and all other Encumbrances other than the Permitted Encumbrances. |
15. | Mineral Reserves and Resources. The most recent estimated measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources and proven and probable mineral reserves, if any, and technical reports disclosed by the Parent for the Project have been prepared and disclosed in accordance with accepted mining industry practices and in accordance with the requirements prescribed by National Instrument 43-101 or SEC Regulations and the companion policy thereto (as in effect on the date of publication of the relevant report or information); neither of the Hycroft Parties has any knowledge that the mineral resources or mineral reserves (or any other material aspect of any technical reports) as disclosed are inaccurate in any material respect; there are no outstanding unresolved comments of any securities commission or other securities regulatory authority in each province and territory of Canada or the United States, in which the Parent is a reporting issuer (the “Securities Regulatory Authorities”) in respect of the technical disclosure made by the Parent; and, to the knowledge of each of the Hycroft Parties, there has been no material reduction in the aggregate amount of estimated mineral resources and reserves, if any, for the Property, from the amounts last disclosed by Parent. |
-4-
16. | Regulatory Compliance. The Parent has filed, on a timely basis, all required reports, schedules, financial statements, forms, registrations, certifications and other documents together with any amendments required to be made with respect thereto with the applicable Securities Regulatory Authorities (together with the exhibits and other information incorporated therein, the “Parent Securities Documents”) and paid all fees and assessments due and payable in connection therewith; as of their respective dates of filing (or, if amended or superseded by a filing prior to the date hereof, as of the date of such filing), the Parent Securities Documents complied in all material respects with the requirements of Applicable Laws and none of the Parent Securities Documents contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omits any material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; the Parent has not filed any confidential material change reports which continue to be confidential. |
17. | Brokers and Finders. No Hycroft Party has employed any broker or finder or incurred any liability for any brokerage fee, commission, finders’ fee or any other similar payment in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement that could give rise to any claim against the Payee for brokerage fees, commissions, finders’ fees or any other similar payments. |
18. | Disclosure. All information relating to the Property provided to the Payee or any of its representatives or advisors, or made available to the Payee or any its representatives or advisors, is true, accurate and complete in all material respects. |
FINAL FORM
Schedule D
FORM OF ROYALTY DEED
(separately attached hereto)
Schedule D
to
Royalty Agreement
Assessor Parcel No’s (for patented mining claims)
Recording requested by, and
when recorded mail to:
Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc.
c/o Wells Parker
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
111 S. Main Street, Suite 2100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176
The undersigned affirm this document does not contain the personal information of any person.
ROYALTY DEED AND MEMORANDUM OF ROYALTY AGREEMENT
THIS ROYALTY DEED AND MEMORANDUM OF ROYALTY AGREEMENT (this “Royalty Deed and Memorandum”), dated effective as of the [●] day of [●], 2020 (the “Effective Date”) is by and among Hycroft Resources & Development, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Owner”), and Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc., an Ontario corporation (“Payee”).
Recital
Owner and Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation (collectively, the “Hycroft Parties”) and Payee are parties to that certain Royalty Agreement (“Agreement”) dated as of [●], 2020 under which Owner grants to Payee a Royalty in and to the Property as such terms are defined and further described in this Royalty Deed and Memorandum. This Royalty Deed and Memorandum is executed for the purpose of affording notice of the existence of the Agreement and the terms and provisions thereof, which terms and provisions are incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. This Royalty Deed and Memorandum summarizes some of the terms and provisions of the Agreement and is not intended to contain all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement or to alter or vary any of the terms and provisions of the Agreement. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Royalty Deed and Memorandum shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.
Royalty Deed and Memorandum
The Agreement contains the following principal terms, among others:
1. Royalty. Owner has created, granted and conveyed to Payee under the Agreement, and does hereby create, grant and convey to Payee, a perpetual royalty in the amount of 1.50% of Net Smelter Returns from Precious Metals produced from those properties described on Exhibit A hereto (“Property”), as more specifically set forth and calculated in the Agreement (“Royalty”).
a. “Precious Metals” means gold and silver in whatever form or state, which are mined, excavated, extracted, recovered in soluble solution or otherwise recovered or produced from the Property.
b. The terms for calculating the Net Smelter Returns and payment of the Royalty are set forth in the Agreement.
c. Owner may, but is not obligated to, repurchase up to 33.3% of the Royalty pursuant to terms set forth in the Agreement. Owner’s repurchase right may be exercised only on the following dates: (i) the first anniversary of the Effective Date and (ii) the second anniversary of the Effective Date. In the event Owner exercises its right to repurchase a portion of the Royalty, an instrument memorializing such repurchase will be recorded in the public records of Humboldt County and Pershing County, Nevada.
d. The Royalty is an interest in real property and constitutes the grant of a vested present interest in the Property and a covenant running with the land and all successions thereof, whether created privately or through government action. The Royalty shall be applicable to the Property and binding upon the Owner and the successors and assigns of the Property. The Royalty shall attach to any amendments, relocations or conversions of any mining claim, license, lease, concession, permit, patent or other tenure comprising the Property, or to any renewals or extensions thereof. If the United States establishes a leasing system or other system of tenure for lands or Precious Metals now subject to location under applicable mining laws, and if the new system gives the Owner an election to acquire rights under the new system in exchange for or in modification of property rights comprising part of the Property, the Royalty, the Agreement and this Royalty Deed and Memorandum shall extend to the lease or other rights granted by the new system in exchange for such property rights included in the Property.
e. Payee shall have all of the rights and incidents of ownership of a non-participating royalty owner, which incidents are covenants running with the Property and include: (a) the ownership of the non-participating royalty interests which are interests in real property; (b) the right to receive, free of expenses other than those deductible in the calculation of net smelter returns, the Royalty payments; and (c) the obligation of Owner, its successors or assigns, to make the Royalty payments and taxes assessed to Payee, which obligation shall run with the land. Payee, however, shall not have or claim any incidents of the fee simple ownership in the Property, which incidents include: (a) the right to enter, explore, develop or mine the claims; (b) the right to execute leases, operating agreements, or similar instruments with respect to the Property; (c) the right to share in bonus payments made as the consideration for the execution of leases or other instruments; and (d) the right to participate in any manner in the decisions concerning, or the conduct of, operations on the Property.
2. Term. The term of the Agreement commences on the Effective Date and is perpetual.
3. Abandonment. The Owner shall not abandon any unpatented claims comprising part of the Property or any other interest in the Property unless it first complies with the Agreement. If the Owner wishes to abandon any of the patented or unpatented claims comprising part of the Property or any other interest in the Property (“Abandonment Property”), the Owner shall first give notice of such intention to the Payee at least 60 days in advance of the proposed date of abandonment. If, not less than 15 days before the proposed date of abandonment, the Owner receives from the Payee written notice that the Payee wishes to acquire the Abandonment Property, the Owner shall, without additional consideration, convey the Abandonment Property in good standing by quit claim deed, without warranty, to the Payee or an assignee thereof, and shall thereafter have no further obligation to maintain title to the Abandonment Property. If the Payee does not give such notice to the Owner within the prescribed period of time, the Owner may abandon the Abandonment Property and shall thereafter have no further obligation to maintain title to the Abandonment Property; provided, however, that if any Hycroft Party reacquires a direct or indirect interest in any of the Abandonment Property within ten years following such abandonment, the production of Precious Metals from such property shall be subject to the Royalty, the Agreement and this Royalty Deed and Memorandum from the effective date of reacquisition. The Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Payee of any such reacquisition.
4. Grant of Security Interest; Deed of Trust. Subject to the Permitted Encumbrances, the Hycroft Parties have granted and agree to grant to the Payee, a continuing security interest and a first priority lien on the Property, including all proceeds and products thereof, in order to secure prompt payment of the obligations and prompt performance by the Hycroft Parties of each and all of their covenants and obligations under the Agreement and this Royalty Deed and Memorandum and any amendments thereto. The Payee’s security interest and first priority lien on the Property is and shall be evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Deed of Trust by the Owner, and such other security documents as Payee may reasonably require. The Owner shall promptly register or record the duly executed Deed of Trust and such other security documents as Payee may reasonably require with all applicable registries or recording offices, including in the Offices of the Recorder of Humboldt County, Nevada and Pershing County, Nevada.
5. Grant of Encumbrances. Except as provided herein or in the Agreement, Owner shall not cause or allow to be registered or otherwise permit to exist any Encumbrance on the Property ranking senior to or equally with this Royalty Deed and Memorandum other than the Permitted Encumbrances.
6. Notice. All notices and communications to the parties shall be delivered as follows:
If to the Hycroft Parties:
Hycroft Resources & Development,
Inc.
8181 E. Tufts Ave. Suite 510 Denver, CO 80237 Email: Steve.Jones@hycroftmining.com Attention: Steve Jones,
with a copy to (which copy shall not be deemed to be notice) to:
Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Suite 2200 HSBC Building 885 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8 Email: dbudd@casselsbrock.com Attention: David Budd
and
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP 2 N. LaSalle Street Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602-3801 Email: DStone@nge.com Attention: David Stone |
If to Payee: Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc.
200 Bay Street, Suite
2600
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
DLA Piper (Canada) LLP
Attention: Douglas
G. Shields
|
7. Transfers. The Owner may only Transfer its rights and obligations under the Agreement and this Royalty Deed and Memorandum, or in and to the Property, if as a condition to completion of the Transfer (and the release of the Guaranteed Obligations in respect of the transferred obligations), any Transferee and its Affiliates shall have first entered into an agreement, in form and substance satisfactory to the Payee, acting reasonably, to be bound by the Agreement and this Royalty Deed and Memorandum (including providing comparable guarantees to that provided by Parent). A “Transfer” includes any sale, grant, assignment, pledge or disposal or the commitment to do any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly, including through mergers, arrangements, amalgamations, consolidations, asset sales or spin out transactions.
8. Relationship Between this Royalty Deed and Memorandum and the Agreement. This Royalty Deed and Memorandum has been executed and recorded in order to apprise third parties and the public generally of the essential terms and conditions of the Agreement. The Agreement contains numerous provisions and details not reflected in this Royalty Deed and Memorandum. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this Royalty Deed and Memorandum and those of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall in all instances prevail and govern. As between the parties, this Royalty Deed and Memorandum is not intended to create and shall not create any terms, conditions, rights, privileges, liabilities, duties or obligations not expressly provided for and set forth in the Agreement. Neither the Agreement nor this Royalty Deed and Memorandum shall imply or give rise to any rights on the part of any person not a party to the Agreement. Requests for information regarding the Agreement should be made to the parties at the addresses set forth above
9. Counterparts. This Royalty Deed and Memorandum may be executed in counterparts and each such counterpart shall be deemed to form part of one and the same document.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Royalty Deed and Memorandum to be signed and executed.
HYCROFT RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT, INC. | ||
By: | ||
Name: | ||
Title: |
STATE OF | ) | |
) § | ||
County of | ) |
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _____________________ by ____________________, the____________________ of Hycroft Resources & Development, Inc., a Nevada corporation.
Signature of Notarial Officer |
SPROTT PRIVATE RESOURCE LENDING II (CO) INC. | ||
By: | ||
Name: | ||
Title: |
STATE OF | ) | |
) § | ||
County of | ) |
This instrument was acknowledged before me on _____________________ by ____________________, the _______________________ of Sprott Private Resource Lending II (CO) Inc., an Ontario corporation.
Signature of Notarial Officer | |
(Seal) |
Exhibit A
to
Royalty Deed and Memorandum of Royalty Agreement
PROPERTY
Part 1 of Exhibit A
The Property subject to this Royalty Deed and Memorandum includes all right, title and interest of any of the Hycroft Parties to:
(ee) | patented claims, fee title, mineral or mining leases, and unpatented mining and millsite claims and all accessions and successions thereto, whether created privately or through government action, mineral rights and surface rights, whether owned or leased, easements, surface use agreements and any other right, title or interest to use the surface estate, all as more particularly described in Part 2 of this Exhibit A; |
(ff) | all water, water rights, ditches and ditch rights, reservoirs and storage rights, wells and groundwater rights (whether tributary or nontributary), permits and other evidence of authority, water shares, water contracts, water allotments, and other rights in and to the use of water of any kind or nature, whether like or unlike the foregoing, decreed or undecreed, appurtenant to or historically used on or in connection with the properties and rights referred to in subparts (a) and (b) above, including the water rights described in Part 2 of this Exhibit A, and all ditches, headgates, outlet structures, measuring devices, pumps, pipelines, sprinkler systems, and other equipment or devices associated with the historical and beneficial use of or otherwise appurtenant to or used in connection with the water rights, and all easements, rights of way, permissions, licenses or other rights associated with the historical and beneficial use of or otherwise appurtenant to or used in connection with any of the water rights or water facilities described herein; |
(gg) | all Minerals, Authorizations and Other Rights, all other property, stockpiles, tailings, buildings, structures, facilities and fixtures used, affixed or situated thereon, Utility Commitments and other rights or assets in each case relating to the interests referred to in (w) and (x) above; and |
(hh) | any of the foregoing subsequently acquired. |
Part 2 of Exhibit A
[To come.]
Exhibit 23.3
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-4, of our report dated March 25, 2019 (which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation’s ability to continue as a going concern) relating to the balance sheets of Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2018 and for the period from August 28, 2017 (inception) through December 31, 2017, and to the reference to our Firm under the caption “Experts” in the Registration Statement.
/s/ WithumSmith+Brown, PC | |
New York, New York | |
February 14, 2020 |
Exhibit 23.4
Consent of Independent Registered PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Form S-4 (No. ____________) and related joint proxy statement/prospectus of Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2020, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Hycroft Mining Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for the years then ended. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the Registration Statement and joint proxy statement/prospectus.
Our report dated February 12, 2020 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company’s significant recurring operating losses, lack of liquidity and capital, and significant capital needed to restart operations raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC
Denver, Colorado
February 12, 2020
Exhibit 23.5
CONSENT OF GREENHILL & CO. CANADA LTD.
February 14, 2020
The Board of Directors
Hycroft Mining Corporation
8181 E. Tufts Ave., Suite 510
Denver, CO 80237, USA
To the Board of Directors of Hycroft Mining Corporation:
We hereby consent to the inclusion of our opinion letter, dated January 13, 2020, to the Board of Directors of Hycroft Mining Corporation (“Hycroft”) as Annex N to, and to the description of such opinion and to the references to our name under the headings “SUMMARY OF THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS – Opinion of Seller’s Financial Advisor,” “THE BUSINESS COMBINATION – Background of the Business Combination,” “THE BUSINESS COMBINATION – Opinion of Seller’s Financial Advisor,” and “THE BUSINESS COMBINATION – Certain Seller Projected Financial Information” in, the joint proxy statement/prospectus, submitted for filing on February 14, 2020, relating to the proposed transaction involving Hycroft and Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”), which joint proxy statement/prospectus is part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of the Company (the “Registration Statement”). In giving the foregoing consent, we do not admit (1) that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) promulgated thereunder, or (2) that we are “experts” with respect to any part of the Registration Statement within the meaning of the term “expert” as used in the Securities Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission promulgated thereunder. Additionally, such consent does not cover any future amendments to the Registration Statement.
GREENHILL & CO., LLC | ||
By: | /s/ Kevin Costantino | |
Kevin Costantino | ||
Managing Director | ||
GREENHILL & CO. CANADA LTD. | ||
By: | /s/ Michael Nessim | |
Michael Nessim | ||
Managing Director |
New York, NY
Toronto, Canada
February 14, 2020
Exhibit 23.6
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation
2051 W. Sunset Road, Ste. 101
Tucson, Arizona 85707
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation (“M3”), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to our name, including our status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by us, that we supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by us, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
M3 is responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 2: Introduction |
• | Section 10: Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing |
• | Section 14: Recovery Methods |
• | Section 15: Project Infrastructure |
• | Section 19: Economic Analysis |
• | Section 24: References |
• | Section 25: Reliance on Other Experts |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 1: Executive Summary |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 18: Capital and Operating Costs |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 22: Interpretation and Conclusions |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 23: Recommendations |
Dated this February 14, 2020
/s/ Art Ibrado, P.E. | |
Signature of Authorized Person for | |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, a Qualified Third-Party Firm | |
Art Ibrado, P.E. | |
Print name of Authorized Person for | |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, , a Qualified Third-Party Firm |
Exhibit 23.7
Steven Newman (RM-SME)
Director, Feasibility Studies
Hycroft Mining Corporation
8181 East Tufts Ave., Suite 510
Denver, CO 80237
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Steven Newman (RM-SME), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to my name, including my status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by me, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
I am a qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 3: Property Description and Location |
• | Section 4: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography |
• | Section 5: History |
• | Section 7.8: Geotechnical Rock Mass Characterization |
• | Section 12: Mineral Reserve Estimates |
• | Section 13: Mining Methods |
• | Section 16: Market Studies and Contracts |
• | Section 20: Adjacent Properties |
• | Section 21: Other Relevant Data and Information |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 1: Executive Summary |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 18: Capital and Operating Costs |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 22: Interpretation and Conclusions |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 23: Recommendations |
Dated this February 14, 2020 | |
/s/ Steven Newman (RM-SME) | |
Signature of Qualified Person | |
Steven Newman (RM-SME) | |
Print name of Qualified Person |
Exhibit 23.8
Brooke Miller Clarkson (CPG)
Senior Consultant
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
5250 Neil Road, Suite 300
Reno, NV 89502
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Brooke Miller Clarkson (CPG), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to my name, including my status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by me, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
I am a qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10: Executive Summary |
• | Section 6: Geology |
• | Section 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7: Exploration |
• | Section 8: Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security |
• | Section 9: Data Verification |
• | Section 23.1: Recommendations |
Dated this February 14, 2020 | |
/s/ Brooke Miller Clarkson, CPG | |
Signature of Qualified Person | |
Brooke Miller Clarkson, CPG | |
Print name of Qualified Person |
Exhibit 23.9
Tim Carew (P. Geo)
Principal Consultant
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
5250 Neil Road, Suite 300
Reno, NV 89502
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Tim Carew (P. Geo.), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to my name, including my status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by me, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
I am a qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 1.12: Executive Summary |
• | Section 11: Mineral Resource Estimates |
• | Section 22.1: Interpretation and Conclusions |
Dated this February 14, 2020
/s/ Tim Carew, P. Geo | |
Signature of Qualified Person | |
Tim Carew, P. Geo | |
Print name of Qualified Person |
Exhibit 23.10
Matt Hartmann (MAusIMM, RM-SME)
Principal Consultant
SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
1125 17th St., Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Matt Hartmann (MAusIMM, RM-SME), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to my name, including my status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by me, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
I am a qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 7.9: Hydrogeology |
• | Section 13.6: Mine Dewatering |
• | Section 18.3.1, Initial Mine Capital Costs, as related to mine dewatering |
Dated this February 14, 2020 | |
/s/ Matt Hartmann (MAusIMM, RM-SME) | |
Signature of Qualified Person | |
Matt Hartmann (MAusIMM, RM-SME) | |
Print name of Qualified Person |
Exhibit 23.11
Richard F. DeLong (P. Geo)
Principal & Environmental Manager
EM Strategies Inc.
1650 Meadow Wood Lane
Reno, NV 89502
CONSENT OF THIRD-PARTY QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Richard F. DeLong (P. Geo), in connection with the Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus and any amendments or supplements and/or exhibits thereto (collectively, the Form S-4), consent to:
• | the filing and use of the technical report summary titled “Hycroft Project, Technical Report Summary, Heap Leaching Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA” (the “Technical Report”), with an effective date of July 31, 2019, as an exhibit to and referenced in the Form S-4; |
• | the use of and references to my name, including my status as an expert or “qualified person” (as defined in Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission), in connection with the Form S-4 and any such Technical Report; and |
• | the information derived, summarized, quoted or referenced from the Technical Report, or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or that was reviewed and approved by me, that is included or incorporated by reference in the Form S-4. |
I am a qualified person responsible for authoring, and this consent pertains to, the following Sections of the Technical Report:
• | Section 3.3: Environmental Liabilities |
• | Section 3.4: Permits |
• | Section 17: Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 1: Executive Summary |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 22: Interpretation and Conclusions |
• | Corresponding Subsections of Section 23: Recommendations |
Dated this February 14, 2020 | |
/s/ Richard F. DeLong (P. Geo) | |
Signature of Qualified Person | |
Richard F. DeLong (P. Geo) | |
Print name of Qualified Person |
Exhibit 96.1
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Date and Signatures Page
This report is effective as of July 31, 2019.
M3 Engineering and Technology | /s/ M3 Engineering | ||
Steven Newman | /s/ Steven Newman | ||
Richard F. DeLong | /s/ Richard F. DeLong | ||
Brooke Miller Clarkson | /s/ Brooke Miller Clarkson | ||
Tim Carew | /s/ Tim Carew | ||
Matt Hartmann | /s/ Matt Hartmann |
|
i |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table of Contents
SECTION | PAGE |
Date and Signatures Page | i | |||
Table of Contents | ii | |||
List of Figures and Illustrations | ix | |||
List of Tables | xi | |||
1 | executive Summary | 14 | ||
1.1 | Principal Findings | 14 | ||
1.2 | Property Description and Location | 15 | ||
1.3 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography | 16 | ||
1.4 | History | 16 | ||
1.4.1 | Mining History | 17 | ||
1.4.2 | Exploration History | 17 | ||
1.5 | Geological Setting and Mineralization | 17 | ||
1.6 | Deposit Types | 18 | ||
1.7 | Exploration | 18 | ||
1.8 | Drilling | 18 | ||
1.9 | Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security | 18 | ||
1.10 | Data Verification | 19 | ||
1.11 | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 19 | ||
1.11.1 | Historical Test Work | 20 | ||
1.11.2 | Recent Heap Leach Test Work | 20 | ||
1.12 | Mineral Resource Estimate | 22 | ||
1.12.1 | Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources | 22 | ||
1.13 | Mineral Reserve Estimate | 23 | ||
1.14 | Mining Methods | 24 | ||
1.15 | Recovery Methods | 25 | ||
1.15.1 | Crushing Plant Design | 28 | ||
1.15.1 | Pre-Oxidation | 28 | ||
1.15.2 | Rinse Cycle | 29 | ||
1.15.3 | Heap Leach Cyanidation | 29 | ||
1.15.4 | Merrill-Crowe and Refinery | 29 | ||
1.15.5 | Water Balance and Solution Management | 30 | ||
1.16 | Project Infrastructure | 30 | ||
1.17 | Market Studies and Contracts | 30 | ||
1.18 | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impacts | 31 | ||
1.18.1 | Mine Closure and Sustainability | 31 | ||
1.19 | Capital and Operating Costs | 31 | ||
1.20 | Economic Analysis | 32 | ||
1.21 | Conclusions and Recommendations | 33 | ||
1.21.1 | Prepared in Accordance with US SEC’s New Mining Rules Under Subpart 1300 and Item 601 (96)(B)(iii) | 33 |
|
ii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
2 | Introduction | 34 | ||
2.1 | Purpose and Basis of Report | 34 | ||
2.2 | Sources of Information | 34 | ||
2.3 | Qualified Persons and Site Visits | 34 | ||
2.3.1 | M3 Engineering & Technology | 34 | ||
2.3.2 | Steven Newman, Registered Member SME | 34 | ||
2.3.3 | Brooke Miller Clarkson, CPG | 34 | ||
2.3.4 | Richard F. DeLong, P. Geo | 35 | ||
2.3.5 | Tim Carew, P. Geo | 35 | ||
2.3.6 | Matt Hartmann, MScMEM, P.G., MAusIMM, Registered Member SME | 35 | ||
2.3.7 | Tabulation | 35 | ||
2.4 | Terms of Reference | 35 | ||
2.5 | Units and Abbreviations | 35 | ||
3 | Property Description and Location | 38 | ||
3.1 | Land Status | 39 | ||
3.2 | Agreements and Royalties | 43 | ||
3.3 | Environmental Liabilities | 43 | ||
3.4 | Permits | 43 | ||
3.4.1 | Hycroft Expansion Permitting | 45 | ||
3.4.2 | Crofoot Heap Leach Facility Closure | 46 | ||
4 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography | 47 | ||
4.1 | Access | 47 | ||
4.2 | Climate | 47 | ||
4.3 | Local Resources and Infrastructure | 47 | ||
4.4 | Physiography | 48 | ||
5 | History | 49 | ||
5.1 | Property History | 49 | ||
5.2 | Mining History | 49 | ||
5.3 | Exploration History | 50 | ||
5.3.1 | Bay | 51 | ||
5.3.2 | Central | 51 | ||
5.3.3 | Boneyard | 52 | ||
5.3.4 | Brimstone | 52 | ||
5.3.5 | Vortex | 52 | ||
5.4 | Production History | 52 | ||
6 | Geological Setting and Mineralization | 54 | ||
6.1 | Geological Setting | 54 | ||
6.1.1 | Regional Geology | 54 | ||
6.1.2 | Local Geology | 55 | ||
6.2 | Alteration and Mineralization | 63 | ||
6.2.1 | Alteration | 63 | ||
6.2.2 | Mineralization | 67 | ||
6.3 | Deposit Types | 68 |
|
iii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
7 | Exploration | 70 | ||
7.1 | Drilling | 70 | ||
7.1.1 | Geologic Logging | 74 | ||
7.1.2 | Surveying | 75 | ||
7.2 | Drill Sample Recovery | 76 | ||
7.2.1 | Reverse Circulation (RC) Recovery | 76 | ||
7.2.2 | Core Recovery | 76 | ||
7.3 | Sampling Method and Approach | 76 | ||
7.3.1 | Reverse Circulation Sampling Methods | 76 | ||
7.3.2 | Core Drilling Sampling Methods | 77 | ||
7.3.3 | Sonic Drilling Sampling Methods | 78 | ||
7.4 | Sample Quality | 79 | ||
7.5 | Sample Location | 79 | ||
7.6 | Downhole Surveys | 79 | ||
7.7 | Final Collar Surveys | 79 | ||
7.8 | Geotechnical Rock Mass Characterization | 79 | ||
7.9 | Hydrogeology | 82 | ||
8 | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security | 85 | ||
8.1 | Sample Preparation | 85 | ||
8.2 | Assay Method | 86 | ||
8.2.1 | Precious Metal Fire Assay Analysis | 87 | ||
8.2.2 | Cyanide Soluble Precious Metal Analysis | 87 | ||
8.2.3 | ICP Multi-Element and LECO Sulfur Analysis | 87 | ||
8.3 | Sample Security | 87 | ||
8.4 | Analytical Results | 88 | ||
8.5 | Quality Assurance (QA) & Quality Control (QC) Check Sample and Check Assays | 88 | ||
8.5.1 | Historical QA/QC Program | 88 | ||
8.5.2 | HMC QA/QC Program | 88 | ||
8.6 | Opinion on Adequacy | 98 | ||
9 | Data Verification | 99 | ||
9.1 | Verification of HMC Drill Data | 99 | ||
9.1.1 | Data Selection | 99 | ||
9.1.2 | Collar Survey Checks | 99 | ||
9.1.3 | Downhole Survey Checks | 100 | ||
9.1.4 | Gold and Silver Assay Verification | 101 | ||
9.1.5 | Total and Sulfide Sulfur Verification | 103 | ||
9.1.6 | Geological Data Check | 103 | ||
9.2 | Verification of Historical Drill Hole Data | 106 | ||
9.3 | Opinion on Data Adequacy | 107 | ||
10 | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 108 | ||
10.1 | Metallurgical Testing History | 108 | ||
10.1.1 | Direct Cyanidation | 109 | ||
10.1.2 | Flotation | 109 |
|
iv |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
10.1.3 | Concentrate Oxidation | 110 | ||
10.2 | Application of Carbonate Assisted Oxidation in Heap Leaching | 112 | ||
10.2.1 | Phase II Column Leach Tests | 113 | ||
10.3 | Ore Types and Sampling | 114 | ||
10.3.1 | Hycroft Ore Domains and Ore Types | 114 | ||
10.3.2 | Ore Samples for Metallurgical Testing | 115 | ||
10.4 | Comminution Tests | 121 | ||
10.4.1 | Crushing Work Index | 121 | ||
10.5 | Column Oxidation and Leach Tests | 121 | ||
10.5.1 | Leach Recovery as a Function of Oxidation | 125 | ||
10.5.2 | Measurement of Oxidation | 125 | ||
10.6 | Chemistry of Oxidation | 125 | ||
10.6.1 | Role of Fe3+/Fe2+ Couple | 126 | ||
10.7 | Reagent Consumption | 128 | ||
10.7.1 | Carbonate Source | 128 | ||
10.7.2 | Cyanide | 131 | ||
10.7.3 | Lime | 133 | ||
10.8 | Metallurgical Parameters for Process Design Criteria and Financial Analysis | 134 | ||
10.9 | Metallurgical Testing In Progress | 135 | ||
11 | Mineral Resource Estimates | 136 | ||
11.1 | Block Model Dimensions | 136 | ||
11.1.1 | Block Model Geometry | 136 | ||
11.2 | Data Collection | 136 | ||
11.2.1 | Drilling Data | 136 | ||
11.2.2 | Topographic Data | 137 | ||
11.2.3 | Tonnage Factor Density | 137 | ||
11.3 | Geologic Models | 137 | ||
11.3.1 | Structural Model | 137 | ||
11.3.2 | Lithology and Formation Model | 138 | ||
11.3.3 | Alteration Model | 138 | ||
11.3.4 | Sulfide and Oxidation Model | 139 | ||
11.3.5 | Grade Domains | 140 | ||
11.3.6 | Geo-metallurgical Domains | 141 | ||
11.4 | Assay Capping and Compositing | 141 | ||
11.4.1 | Capping | 141 | ||
11.4.2 | Compositing | 143 | ||
11.5 | Variogram Analysis and Modeling | 143 | ||
11.5.1 | Variography Parameters | 143 | ||
11.6 | Estimation Methodology | 144 | ||
11.6.1 | In Situ Material | 144 | ||
11.6.2 | Fill Material | 147 | ||
11.6.3 | Sulfide Stockpile Material | 147 | ||
11.6.4 | Missing AuCN values | 150 |
|
v |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
11.7 | Model Validation | 150 | ||
11.7.1 | Visual Comparison | 152 | ||
11.7.2 | Comparative Statistics | 153 | ||
11.7.3 | Swath Plots | 154 | ||
11.8 | Resource Classification | 156 | ||
11.9 | Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary | 158 | ||
11.9.1 | Resource Pit Optimization (Whittle) Parameters | 158 | ||
11.10 | Mineral Resource Statement | 160 | ||
11.10.1 | Mineral Resource Sensitivity | 161 | ||
12 | Mineral Reserve Estimates | 162 | ||
12.1 | Whittle Analysis and Block Value Inputs | 163 | ||
12.2 | Dilution | 168 | ||
12.3 | Cut-off Grades | 168 | ||
13 | Mining Methods | 170 | ||
13.1 | Open Pit Design | 170 | ||
13.2 | Open Pit Operations | 170 | ||
13.3 | Ore Control | 171 | ||
13.4 | Waste Rock Storage | 171 | ||
13.5 | Geomechanics | 172 | ||
13.6 | Mine Dewatering | 174 | ||
13.7 | Life of Mine Plan | 177 | ||
13.8 | Mine Equipment | 178 | ||
14 | Recovery Methods | 185 | ||
14.1 | Process Description | 185 | ||
14.2 | Process Design Criteria | 185 | ||
14.3 | Crushing Plant Design | 187 | ||
14.3.1 | Primary Crushing and Crushed Ore Stockpile | 187 | ||
14.3.2 | Secondary and Tertiary Crushing | 189 | ||
14.4 | Conveying and Stacking | 189 | ||
14.5 | Pre-Oxidation | 189 | ||
14.6 | Rinse Cycle | 190 | ||
14.7 | Heap Leach Cyanidation | 191 | ||
14.8 | Merrill-Crowe Precipitation and Refinery | 191 | ||
14.9 | Water Balance and Solution Management | 191 | ||
14.10 | Reagents and Consumables | 193 | ||
14.10.1 | Consumption Rates | 193 | ||
14.10.2 | Soda Ash Handling | 193 | ||
14.11 | Power Consumption | 193 | ||
14.12 | Control Systems | 194 | ||
14.13 | Plant Services | 194 | ||
14.13.1 | Mobile Equipment | 194 | ||
14.13.2 | Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories | 194 | ||
14.14 | Production Estimate | 195 |
|
vi |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
|
vii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
19.4.3 | Working Capital | 211 | ||
19.4.4 | Salvage Value | 211 | ||
19.5 | Revenue | 211 | ||
19.6 | Operating Cost | 211 | ||
19.7 | Reclamation & Closure | 212 | ||
19.8 | Taxation (Federal Income Tax) | 212 | ||
19.9 | Project Financing | 212 | ||
19.10 | Net Cash Flow After Tax | 212 | ||
19.11 | NPV and IRR | 212 | ||
19.12 | Financial Model | 213 | ||
19.13 | Sensitivities | 217 | ||
20 | Adjacent Properties | 218 | ||
21 | Other Relevant Data and Information | 219 | ||
22 | Interpretation and Conclusions | 220 | ||
22.1 | Mineral Resources | 220 | ||
22.2 | Mineral Reserves | 220 | ||
22.3 | Social Impact, Permits and Utilities | 220 | ||
22.4 | Project Financials | 220 | ||
22.5 | Metallurgical Processing | 221 | ||
23 | Recommendations | 222 | ||
23.1 | Geology, Exploration and Drilling: | 222 | ||
24 | References | 223 | ||
25 | Reliance on Other Experts | 227 |
|
viii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
List of Figures and Illustrations
FIGURE | DESCRIPTION | PAGE |
Figure 1-1: Simplified Process Flow Diagram for the Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Operation | 27 |
Figure 3-1: Hycroft Mine Property Location Map (June 2018) | 39 |
Figure 3-2: Hycroft Mine Claim Map (June 2019) | 41 |
Figure 3-3: Current Property and Facilities Layout (June 2019) | 42 |
Figure 6-1: Stratigraphic Column for Hycroft Deposit Area | 55 |
Figure 6-2: Simplified East-West Cross Sections through the Sulfur District | 56 |
Figure 6-3: Geological Map of the Greater Hycroft Area | 57 |
Figure 6-4: Brimstone North Pit Wall Geology | 59 |
Figure 6-5: Brimstone Generalized Geology Cross Section | 59 |
Figure 6-6: Vortex to Camel Generalized Section | 60 |
Figure 6-7: Bay Geologic Cross Section | 61 |
Figure 6-8: Bay Looking North | 62 |
Figure 6-9: Central Pit Geologic Cross Section | 63 |
Figure 6-10: Hypogene Oxidation by Acid - Steam Heated Solution | 66 |
Figure 6-11: Supergene Oxidation + Normal Fault Movement | 67 |
Figure 6-12: Generalized Hycroft Epithermal Diagram | 69 |
Figure 7-1: Drill Hole Collar Locations | 72 |
Figure 8-1: MEG AN12001, 2, and 4X AuFA Standards Results | 90 |
Figure 8-2: MEG AN12001, 2, and 4X AgFA Standards Results | 91 |
Figure 8-3: MEG S107009, 10, and 11X AuFA Standards Results | 92 |
Figure 8-4: MEG S107009, 10, and 11X AuFA Standards Results | 93 |
Figure 8-5: Check Assay - AuFA | 94 |
Figure 8-6: Check Assay - AgFA | 95 |
Figure 8-7: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, Total Gold | 96 |
Figure 8-8: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, CN-Soluble Gold | 96 |
Figure 8-9: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, Total Silver | 97 |
Figure 8-10: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, CN-Soluble Silver | 97 |
Figure 9-1: Density Samples with Optimized Resource Pit, Looking North and Down | 105 |
Figure 10-1: Gold and Silver Extractions Vs. Sulfide Oxidation | 111 |
Figure 10-2: Oxidation of Central Flotation Concentrate: Sulfate Spike Test | 112 |
Figure 10-3: Demonstration Plant Cyanide Leach Recovery of Au and Ag | 112 |
Figure 10-4: Gold Recovery v Sulfide Oxidation Plot Corrected for Initial CN-Soluble Au | 114 |
Figure 10-5: Location of Sample Sources for Phase 3 Heap Leaching Tests | 116 |
Figure 10-6: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5522 | 117 |
Figure 10-7: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5523 | 117 |
Figure 10-8: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5524 | 118 |
Figure 10-9: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5525 | 118 |
Figure 10-10: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5526 | 119 |
Figure 10-11: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5527 | 119 |
Figure 10-12: Column 300 Brimstone | 123 |
|
ix |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-13: Column 331 Brimstone North Ramp | 123 |
Figure 10-14: Brimstone Sulfide Core | 123 |
Figure 10-15: Column 327 Central Sulfide | 124 |
Figure 10-16: Column 333 Camel Below the Water Table - Restart | 124 |
Figure 10-17: Column 334 Camel Above the Water Table Restart | 124 |
Figure 10-18: Eh-pH diagram showing dissolved iron species in the Fe-CO32- system (from Caldeira et al., 2009) | 127 |
Figure 10-19: Mechanism of Pyrite Oxidation Assisted by the Fe3+/Fe2+ Couple (by Caldeira et al., 2009) | 128 |
Figure 10-20: Trona Addition vs Total Alkalinity | 129 |
Figure 10-21: Trona Consumption of a 60-day Pre-oxidation Test (Brimstone Drill Composite) | 130 |
Figure 10-22: Soda Ash Consumption of a 180-day Pre-oxidation Test (Central Excavation) | 131 |
Figure 10-23: Cyanide Consumption During Rinse and Leach (Brimstone Drill Composite) | 133 |
Figure 10-24: Lime Consumption During Rinse and Leach (Brimstone Drill Composite) | 134 |
Figure 10-25: Column 61 Reagent Consumption (Brimstone Drill Composite) | 134 |
Figure 11-1: Metal%-Ton% Ratio - Brim Vortex Kamma Lithology, Ag Fire Assay | 142 |
Figure 11-2: Gold Search Ellipses (Pass 1) | 147 |
Figure 11-3: Fill and Stockpile Coding – Section 40250N (Looking North) | 148 |
Figure 11-4: 41000N AuFa Block Grades and Composites (Looking North) | 152 |
Figure 11-5: 41000N AgFa Block Grades and Composites (Looking North) | 153 |
Figure 11-6: 41000N Sulfide% Block Grades and Composites (Looking North) | 153 |
Figure 11-7: AuFa Grades by Easting - Brimstone Vortex Domain | 155 |
Figure 11-8: AuFa Grades by Northing - Brimstone Vortex Domain | 155 |
Figure 11-9: AuFa Grades by Elevation - Brimstone Vortex Domain | 156 |
Figure 11-10: Classification: 41000N (Looking North) 200 Ft Corridor | 157 |
Figure 11-11: 41000N - Resource Blocks by AuEq Block Grades (OPT) - Looking North | 161 |
Figure 13-1: Geotechnical Sectors | 174 |
Figure 13-2: Location of Dewatering Wells Simulated by Groundwater Model (SRK, 2019) | 176 |
Figure 13-3: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2020 | 180 |
Figure 13-4: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2025 | 181 |
Figure 13-5: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2030 | 182 |
Figure 13-6: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2040 | 183 |
Figure 13-7: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2052 | 184 |
Figure 14-1: Simplified Process Flow Diagram for the Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Operation | 186 |
Figure 14-2: Water Balance Model | 192 |
Figure 15-1: Overall Project Area Map | 198 |
Figure 15-2: Overall Process Area Plan | 199 |
|
x |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
List of Tables
TABLE | DESCRIPTION | PAGE |
Table 1-1: Hycroft Technical Report Summary Relevant Statistics | 15 |
Table 1-2: Operating Parameters and Expected Recoveries for Heap Leaching | 22 |
Table 1-3: Hycroft Heap Leach Mineral Resource Estimate, June 30, 2019 – SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 23 |
Table 1-4: Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves – June 30, 2019 | 24 |
Table 1-5: Metal Recoveries Used for Mass Balance Simulation | 26 |
Table 1-6: Initial Capital Cost Breakdown | 32 |
Table 1-7: Life of Mine Operating Cost per Ton Processed | 32 |
Table 1-8: Metal Price Sensitivity of the LOM Heap Leach Operations (after tax) | 33 |
Table 1-9: Operating and Capital Cost Sensitivity of the LOM Heap Leach Operations (after tax), NPV @ 5% | 33 |
Table 2-1: List of Qualified Persons | 35 |
Table 2-2: List of Units and Abbreviations | 36 |
Table 3-1: Hycroft Annual Land Holding Costs | 43 |
Table 3-2: Hycroft Operating Permits | 44 |
Table 3-3: Hycroft Miscellaneous Permits | 44 |
Table 3-4: Hycroft Permits and Annual Fees | 45 |
Table 3-5: Right-of-Way Payment and Renewal Schedule | 45 |
Table 4-1: Hycroft Water Wells and Permitted Yearly Consumption | 48 |
Table 5-1: Historical Drilling | 51 |
Table 5-2: Life of Mine Production from Hycroft (1983 – August 2016) | 52 |
Table 7-1: Hycroft Exploration Drill Campaigns | 73 |
Table 7-2: Exploration Drill holes by Type | 74 |
Table 7-3: Discovery Years of Hycroft Mineralized Zones | 74 |
Table 7-4: HMC Logging Code Fields | 75 |
Table 7-5: Hycroft Intact Shear Strength by Rock Type | 81 |
Table 7-6: Rock Mass Strengths Used in the Stability Analyses | 81 |
Table 7-7: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Values Measured in Field and Used in Model by Hydrogeologic Unit | 83 |
Table 8-1: Analytical Methods | 86 |
Table 8-2: Certified Standards | 89 |
Table 8-3: ALS Duplicates | 95 |
Table 9-1: Summary of Gold and Silver Values in Master Database Table | 101 |
Table 9-2: Density Data Summary | 106 |
Table 10-1: Oxidation and Metal Recoveries Attained in Phase 2 Column Leach Tests | 113 |
Table 10-2: List of Domain Ores Routed to Direct Leaching | 115 |
Table 10-3: List of Domain Ores Routed to Pre-Oxidation and Leaching | 115 |
Table 10-4: Phase 3 Column Oxidation and Leach Tests | 120 |
Table 10-5: List of Column Leach Tests with the Prescribed Rinse Procedure | 122 |
Table 10-6: Summary of Test Results | 125 |
Table 10-7: List of Carbonate Complexes of Iron (Caldeira et al., 2009) | 126 |
Table 10-8: Operating Parameters and Expected Recoveries for Heap Leaching | 135 |
|
xi |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-1: Block Model Geometry – Coordinates in Hycroft Mine Grid, feet | 136 |
Table 11-2: Hycroft Tonnage Factors | 137 |
Table 11-3: Logged and Modeled Formation Codes | 138 |
Table 11-4: SRK Metallurgical Material Types | 140 |
Table 11-5: Gold Assay Capping Analysis Results | 143 |
Table 11-6: Silver Assay Capping Analysis Summary | 143 |
Table 11-7: Variogram Parameters by Grade Shell | 144 |
Table 11-8: Gold Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell | 145 |
Table 11-9: Silver Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell | 146 |
Table 11-10: Sulfide Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell | 146 |
Table 11-11: Summary Assay Statistics – AUFA (OPT) | 148 |
Table 11-12: Summary Assay Statistics – AUCN (OPT) | 148 |
Table 11-13: Summary Assay Statistics – AGFA (OPT) | 149 |
Table 11-14: Summary Assay Statistics – AGCN (OPT) | 149 |
Table 11-15: Default Grades for Un-estimated Blocks by Area | 150 |
Table 11-16: Reconciliation of Block Model to 2008-2015 Production | 152 |
Table 11-17: Model Validation: Comparison of Estimation Methods – Gold | 153 |
Table 11-18: Model Validation: Comparison of Estimation Methods – Silver | 154 |
Table 11-19: Resource Classification Criteria | 157 |
Table 11-20: Resource Pit Optimization (Whittle)/NSR Parameters | 158 |
Table 11-21: Hycroft Heap Leach Mineral Resource Estimate, June 30, 2019 – SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. | 160 |
Table 11-22: Whittle Resource Pit - Price Sensitivity | 161 |
Table 12-1: Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves – 6/30/2019 | 163 |
Table 12-2: Whittle Input Parameters – Heap Leach | 164 |
Table 12-3: Recoveries Utilized in Whittle Optimization | 165 |
Table 12-4: Soda Ash Costs | 166 |
Table 12-5: Whittle Pit Slope Profiles | 167 |
Table 12-6: Geovia Whittle® Economic Pit Limits | 168 |
Table 12-7: Typical Break-even Individual Single Metal Cut-off Grade Summary | 169 |
Table 13-1: Geotechnical Slope Design | 173 |
Table 13-2: Annual Production Schedule | 178 |
Table 13-3: Mining Fleet | 179 |
Table 13-4: Mine Equipment Useful Life | 179 |
Table 14-1: Head Grades and Recoveries Used for Mass Balance Simulation | 187 |
Table 14-2: Process Design Criteria Highlights | 188 |
Table 14-3: Process Reagents and Consumption Rates | 193 |
Table 14-4: Summary of Power Consumption in a Typical Year (Year 7) | 193 |
Table 14-5: Mobile Equipment List | 194 |
Table 14-6: Hycroft Metal Production | 195 |
Table 18-1: Average Mining Costs for the Life of Mine1 | 203 |
Table 18-2: Mine Operations Manpower | 204 |
Table 18-3: Process Operating Cost Summary | 205 |
Table 18-4: Average Annual Process Plant Labor (Typical Year – Year 7) | 205 |
|
xii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 18-5: Average Annual Power Cost Summary* (Typical Year – Year 7) | 205 |
Table 18-6: Reagents Consumption Summary | 206 |
Table 18-7: Wear Items | 206 |
Table 18-8: Dewatering Capital | 207 |
Table 18-9: Estimated Initial Capital Cost (Year 1-5; 000s) | 207 |
Table 18-10: Documents Available to Estimators | 209 |
Table 19-1: Life of Mine Ore, Waste Quantities, and Ore Grade | 210 |
Table 19-2: Average Life of Mine Metal Recovery Factors | 210 |
Table 19-3: Life of Mine Metal Production | 210 |
Table 19-4: Refining Factors | 211 |
Table 19-5: Operating Cost | 212 |
Table 19-6: Financial Model | 214 |
Table 19-7: Hycroft Metal Price Sensitivity | 216 |
Table 19-8: Hycroft Mining/Processing/Capital Cost Sensitivity | 216 |
|
xiii |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1 | executive Summary |
1.1 | Principal Findings |
This Technical Report Summary has been prepared by M3 Engineering and Technology (“M3”), in association with SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. (“SRK”) and Hycroft Mining Corporation (“Hycroft Mining” or “HMC” or “the Company”), following the reporting requirements of following the reporting requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) new mining rules under subpart 1300 and item 601 (96)(B)(iii) of Regulation S-K (the “New Mining Rules”).
This Technical Report Summary provides results of the Hycroft Heap Leach feasibility study that evaluated the possibility of oxidizing and leaching transitional and sulfidic material in a heap leach application. HMC is seeking patent protection for these processes and applications. Presented herein are an updated mineral reserve and resource estimate, a supporting life-of-mine plan and the results of metallurgical testing to determine the applicability of oxidizing and leaching transition and sulfide ore in a heap leach process. The metallurgical testing includes three phases of the ongoing test program using extensive column and bottle roll test work.
Up to July 2015, Hycroft was mining and conducting heap leach operations, including the operations of two Merrill-Crowe plants. Through the first quarter of 2017, operations were limited to treatment of existing material on the leach pads using conventional cyanide heap leaching methods and recovery of a small fraction of its gold and silver production initially with the Merrill-Crowe plants and then later by carbon adsorption, from which loaded carbon was sold offsite for processing. At the end of the first quarter of 2017 and through December 31, 2018, Hycroft entered a care and maintenance mode whereby gold and silver produced were a byproduct of the maintenance activities. Mining operations resumed in the second quarter of 2019 and gold and silver production is expected to begin in the third quarter of 2019.
As part of a restart, the Company began construction of nine individual heap leach test pads to demonstrate on a commercial scale the oxidation and leaching process it has been developing over that last four years. To date, five of those test pads have been loaded with ore and are in various stages of the process.
This feasibility study includes updated mineral resources and the associated mine plan, updated operating parameters determined through ongoing testwork and updated financial metrics. The feasibility analyzes a full-scale operation including construction of new leach pads and expanded mining activities. Key components of the process that currently exist onsite include heap leach pads, a crushing facility consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary crushing, two Merrill-Crowe plants having a total capacity of 26,000 gpm and associated support facilities.
HMC intends to implement the full-scale operation at Hycroft in the manner described in this Technical Report Summary, subject to financing and acquisition of the required permits. Table 1-1 summarizes the key statistics for the project.
|
14 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 1-1: Hycroft Technical Report Summary Relevant Statistics
Mine Life (years) | 34 years | |||
Mine Type | Open Pit | |||
Process Description | Heap Leach – Run of mine and ¾” crushing (oxide/transition), ½” crushing and oxidation (transition/sulfide), dedicated leach pad | |||
Total Heap Leach Ore Mined, short tons (000s) | 1,133,060 | |||
Strip Ratio | 1.17 | |||
LOM Gold Ore Grade | 0.011 | |||
LOM Silver Ore Grade | 0.425 | |||
Initial Capital Costs ($US Millions) | $230.8 | |||
Sustaining Capital Costs ($US Millions) | $537.6 | |||
Adjustment for Escalation | None – Assumed Q2 2019 dollars | |||
Payable Metals | ||||
Gold (Million ounces) | 7.8 | |||
Silver (Million ounces) | 344.1 | |||
Unit Operating Cost: |
First 5 Years
Full Operation (2020-2024)1 |
First 10 Years
Full Operation (2020-2029)1 |
All Years
(2019-2052) |
|
Mining Cost /ton mined | $1.75 | $1.57 | $1.61 | |
Heap Leach Processing Cost /ton processed | $3.85 | $3.98 | $4.01 | |
G&A Cost (includes Treatment & Refining, Transport, Royalties, Net Proceeds Tax) /ton processed | $0.84 | $0.82 | $0.86 | |
Total Cost per Ton Processed | $8.46 | $8.47 | $8.52 | |
By-Product Credits (Silver) /ton processed | $3.56 | $4.53 | $5.26 | |
Net Operating Cost per Ton Processed | $4.90 | $3.94 | $3.25 | |
Financial Indicators | Base Case |
High Metal
Price |
Moderate
Metal Price |
Low Metal Price2 |
Gold Price (per troy ounce) | $1,300 | $1,500 | $1,400 | $1,200 |
Silver Price (per troy ounce) | $17.33 | $20.00 | $18.67 | $16.50 |
After Tax Project Internal Rate of Return (IRR) | 148.6% | N/A3 | 307.9% | 80.2% |
After Tax NPV at 5% Discount Rate ($ Billions) | $2.1 | $3.0 | $2.6 | $1.7 |
After Tax Payback (years) | 2.5 | <1.0 | 2.2 | 3.1 |
Major Permit Status | ||||
Plan of Operations for EIS (AAO process and mining below the water table) | Expected to be received by year end 2019 | |||
Plan of Operations Amendment for Stage 1 HLF | Approval Received July 2019 | |||
Water Pollution Control Permit Modification for Stage 1 HLF | Expected to be received by year end 2019 |
1. | 2019 has been excluded from the calculation as it is only a partial ramp-up year. |
2. | Low Metal Price is the basis for Mineral Reserve. |
3. | IRR is N/A as this price scenario generates cash flow in the first year. |
1.2 | Property Description and Location |
The Hycroft Mine is located 54 miles west of Winnemucca in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada, USA. The Hycroft property consists of 30 private parcels that comprise approximately 1,912 acres and 3,247 unpatented mining claims that encompass approximately 68,759 acres.
|
15 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.3 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography |
Access to the Hycroft Mine from Winnemucca is by means of State Route 49 (Jungo Road). A major east-west railway passes through the Hycroft claim position. There are no streams, rivers, or major lakes in the project area.
The climate for the region is arid, with precipitation averaging 7.7 inches per year. Temperatures during the summer are generally 50°F at night and near 90°F during the day. Winter temperatures are usually 20°F at night and 40°F during the day.
The current mine site has a truck shop, crushing facilities, ore processing facilities, administrative buildings, as well as other service-related structures. Electricity is currently supplied by NV Energy via overhead transmission lines. A modern communications system exists at the site.
1.4 | History |
Mining at Hycroft began in 1983 with a small heap leach operation known as the Lewis Mine. Lewis Mine production was followed by production from the Crofoot property in the Bay, South Central, Boneyard, Gap and Cut-4 pits along the Central Zone. Production from the north end of the Brimstone pit continued until December 1998. Due to gold prices averaging below $300/oz, the mine was placed on a care and maintenance program though processing continued through 2004 when mining ceased in December 1998.
Vista acquired the Lewis Mine in early 1987 from F. W. Lewis, Inc., and the Crofoot Mine in April 1988. The remaining leasehold interest in the Lewis property was purchased by Vista in December 2005.
The Hycroft Mine produced approximately 1.2 million ounces of gold and 2.5 million ounces of silver from 1983 to 1998 when the operations were suspended. An additional 58,700 ounces of gold was produced from the leaching and rinsing of the heap leach pads from 1999 through 2004, after the mine was placed on care and maintenance.
In May 2007, the Nevada-based holdings of Vista were spun out into Allied Nevada Gold Corp. The Hycroft Mine was included as part of the transfer of ownership allowing Allied Nevada to explore, expand, and develop the resources at Hycroft. The Hycroft Mine was reactivated in September 2007 and produced its first doré in December 2008, and achieved planned ore production by the end of 2009.
With the construction of the North leach pad in 2013, the total leach pad space for the Brimstone, Lewis and North leach pads was increased to more than 20 million square feet. In 2010, the mine began an expansion program that included construction of a 21,000 gallon per minute Merrill-Crowe processing plant and a three-stage crushing facility as well solution pumping capacity upgrades.
Active mining was stopped at Hycroft in June 2015 due to low metal prices, but active leaching of previously mined ore continued through 2018. At the end of the first quarter of 2017, Hycroft began a care and maintenance mode, while producing gold and silver as a byproduct of the maintenance activities.
On October 22, 2015, Allied Nevada emerged from its financial restructuring and changed its name to Hycroft Mining Corporation.
In late 2018, Hycroft began construction of new leach pads to demonstrate its recently developed heap oxidation and leach process at a commercial scale. Additionally, in January 2019 Hycroft began preparing the mine, including its facilities and mining equipment, for a restart. Active mining began in April 2019, with a focus on transition and sulfide material. Ore has been placed on the new leach pads and is in the active oxidation phase. Production of gold and silver is expected in the third quarter of 2019.
|
16 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Since the Hycroft mine was reactivated by HMC in September 2007 through July 2019, metal sales have totaled approximately 900,000 ounces of gold and 5.0 million ounces of silver.
1.4.1 | Mining History |
Mining in the Sulfur District, where the Hycroft Mine is located, began in the late 1800’s for native sulfur (Couch and Carpenter, 1943; Wilden, 1964). Mining of native sulfur was sporadic from 1900 to 1950 with over 181,488 tons of sulfur ore, grading approximately 20-35% sulfur (McLean, 1991).
High-grade silver, consisting of nearly pure seams of cerargyrite (AgCl), was also mined in 1908 at Camel Hill (Vandenburg, 1938) until 1912. Minor silver mining also occurred along the East Fault at the Snyder Adit (Friberg, 1980; Bates, 2001).
During the First World War, veins of nearly pure alunite were mined in the southern part of the Sulfur District (Clark, 1918). In 1931, several hundred tons of alunite were mined as a soil additive (Fulton and Smith, 1932). Vandenburg estimated that 454 tons of alunite was shipped to the west coast to be used as fertilizer (Vandenburg, 1938). From 1941 to 1943, cinnabar was mined from small pits in the exposed acid leach zone (Bailey, 1944). Total mercury production during this period is estimated at 1,900 lbs (McLean, 1991).
1.4.2 | Exploration History |
In 1966, the Great American Minerals Company began extensive exploration for native sulfur in the area of the Hycroft Mine. Approximately 200 shallow holes were drilled, and numerous trenches dug (Friberg, 1980). In 1974, the Duval Corporation (Duval) drilled 20 holes on the Hycroft property in search of a Frasch-type sulfur deposit (Wallace, 1980). Duval found no evidence of a sulfur deposit at depth, but did report elevated gold and silver values. Duval drilled two core holes (DC-1 and DC-2) and 18 rotary holes (DR-3 through 20) (Ware, 1989).
In 1977, the Cordex Syndicate mapped and rock chip sampled the Hycroft property, recognizing the potential for a bulk tonnage, low-grade precious metal deposit. In 1978, Homestake became interested in the property, recognizing similarities with the McLaughlin hot springs deposit in California. Homestake completed surface sampling and exploration drilling during 1981-1982, and although successful in defining an oxide gold/silver ore body, they dropped the property in 1982.
HRDI gained control of the district in 1985 and drilled 3,212 exploration holes, totaling 965,552 feet, between 1985 and 1999. The bulk of this drilling was shallow and focused on oxide gold mineralization at Central, Bay and Brimstone. In 2005, Canyon Resources completed 33 drill holes totaling 13,275 feet of reverse circulation (RC) drilling. These were completed primarily in the Brimstone pit area.
1.5 | Geological Setting and Mineralization |
The Hycroft Mine is located on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains in the Basin and Range physiographic province of northwestern Nevada. The Kamma Mountains were formed during the Miocene to Quaternary Epoch from the uplift of Jurassic basement rock and emplacement of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The stratigraphy along the western flank of the range is down dropped to the west, along a series of north to northeast striking normal faults. These faults served as conduits for hydrothermal fluids that deposited the Hycroft mineralization.
Hycroft is a large, epithermal, low sulfidation, hot springs deposit. Gold and silver mineralization occurs as both disseminated and vein-controlled, with gold values ranging from detection to 8.8 ounces per ton (opt), and silver ranging from detection to 647.5 opt.
|
17 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.6 | Deposit Types |
The deposit is typically broken into six major zones based on geology, mineralization, and alteration. These zones include Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay, Boneyard, and Camel. Breaks between the zones are major faults.
Mineralization at Hycroft has been deposited through multiple phases. An early silica sulfide flooding event deposited relatively low-grade gold and silver mineralization, generally along bedding. This mineralization is cross cut by later, steeply dipping quartz alunite veins. Late stage silver bearing veins are found in the Vortex zone and at depth in the Central area. Late to present supergene oxidation along faults has liberated precious metals from sulfides and further enriched gold and silver mineralization, along water table levels.
1.7 | Exploration |
In addition to drilling activity, Hycroft Mining has also conducted geophysical surveys, soil and rock chip sampling programs, field mapping, historical data compilation, and regional reconnaissance at Hycroft. These efforts are designed to improve the understanding of the known mineralization, as well as provide data for further exploration of the greater property position. Through these activities, Hycroft Mining has identified and estimated mineral resources and mineral reserves on the property as well as a number of targets, mostly concentrated in the southern area of the claim block.
Regional exploration data from Homestake, LAC Minerals, USMX, HRDI, and others have been compiled from both in-house and public data sources. Approximately 250 drill holes, various soil and rock chip locations and results, and various field maps have been identified at present.
1.8 | Drilling |
The Hycroft exploration model includes data from 1981 to December 2018 and includes 5,501 holes, representing 2,482,722 feet of drilling. There have been 5,576 drill holes completed in the Hycroft Project area; some are water wells or are outside the resource model domain and were not applied to estimation. Exploration drilling was started in 1974 by Duval Corporation, and continued through various owners including Homestake, HRDI and Canyon Resources. This historic drilling was conducted prior to the New Mining Rules reporting requirements. In the QP’s opinion, no significant issues have been identified with the historic data and therefore the historic drilling and assay results are incorporated into the Hycroft model.
HMC commenced systematic exploration and resource development drilling starting in 2006. Drilling has been focused on oxide reserve delineation, sulfide resource definition, sulfide exploration, condemnation drilling for facilities, silver data and both geotechnical and metallurgical core samples. A combination of rotary, reverse circulation and core drilling techniques has been utilized to evaluate the nature and extent of mineralization. From late 2006 to August 31, 2016, HMC completed 1,970 exploration holes, totaling approximately 1.45 million feet.
1.9 | Sample Preparation, Analysis and Security |
Hycroft drill hole samples were shipped to accredited, independent laboratories in Reno or Elko, Nevada, for sample preparation and analysis. Sample security and handling procedures were not investigated in detail by the QP, because the programs were completed prior the QP’s involvement, except for the 2018 sonic drilling program. However, it is the QP’s opinion that sample handling, preparation, and analysis methods meet current industry standards for quality.
Industry standard sampling of reverse circulation and core drill holes is utilized by HMC. The HMC QA/QC program includes analysis of standard reference materials, inert blanks, and duplicate pulps, as well as check assays by umpire laboratories. The program has been designed to ensure that at least one standard and one blank are inserted into the
|
18 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
drill sample stream for every 40 drill samples (200 ft), which are the number of HMC samples in each ALS Chemex analytical batch. In practice, the insertion rates for the QA/QC samples are somewhat higher, based on drill-hole depth.
A transmittal sheet for both the bagged core and RC samples by drill hole was prepared for submission to the laboratory. Once at the laboratory, samples were prepared from a split of 70% passing minus 3 mesh if pieces were too large to fit in the pulverizer, and further crushing of 70% passing minus 10 mesh. A 2.2-pound split is taken and pulverized to 85% passing minus 200 mesh.
No officers, directors, or associates of the issuer were operationally involved with the routine sample preparation.
Following analysis, a complete digital file including corresponding unique self-identifying sample numbers for each sample is provided to HMC. These results are uploaded into an acQuire database and further checked using electronic methods.
1.10 | Data Verification |
The HMC drill hole database has been validated by the HMC exploration group for previous technical reports. A review and validation of the HMC collar coordinate, down-hole survey, and geology data was completed in Q3 2014 by HMC geologists.
SRK completed data verification and validation in advance of geological modeling and resource estimation, first between May and July 2017, for gold, silver, sulfide sulfur, and total sulfur analytical results, and for logged geological data. During this review, the analytical databases were found to be incomplete. SRK worked with Hycroft to extract all available analytical data from the acQuire database. This resulted in a 58% increase in the sulfide sulfur dataset. The compilation of gold and silver assay values in parts per million (PPM) units resulted in more intervals with valid cyanide soluble gold to fire assay gold (Au CN:FA) values for oxide modeling, and greater precision for grade estimation. SRK completed data verification for the new analytical database in September 2017. Verification of the sulfide stockpile drilling data was completed in 2019 for the resource estimation update.
1.11 | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing |
Hycroft Mining has been operating the Hycroft open pit heap leach facility to produce gold and silver since 2008. Prior to that, Hycroft was operated in a similar manner by Vista Gold. The cumulative performance statistics and metallurgical test data gathered are extensive.
Previous testing and feasibility analysis indicated that transition and sulfide ore can be oxidized in a heap leach operation prior to irrigation with cyanide solution. The objective of this study is to update the previous study with recent testwork and assumptions. This process, which is the subject of a pending patent application, will accomplish two goals, namely, the liberation of gold in the sulfides by oxidation using soda ash to manage pH and alkalinity, thereby increasing its recovery, and the reduction of the heap’s potential to turn acidic during cyanide leaching.
Ore is classified as “oxide,” “transitional,” or “sulfide,” depending on the solubility of its gold content in cyanide solution (refractoriness). Ores having cyanide soluble gold contents of 70% or higher are classified as oxide ore. Those with cyanide-soluble gold contents below 30% are considered sulfide. The remainder, with cyanide-soluble contents between 30 to 70% are considered transition ores.
The classification has been shown to have no correlation with sulfide sulfur content. The mining schedule developed considers the recovery of gold and silver from these ores plus the cost of treatment.
|
19 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.11.1 | Historical Test Work |
Beginning in 2007, Hycroft Mining examined milling options to expand production, including direct cyanidation of high-grade oxide ore, and production of a flotation concentrate from sulfide ore, followed by an oxidative treatment of the concentrate. The original focus was on oxidation methods primarily employed in the Nevada gold industry, including pressure oxidation (POX) and roasting. Test work on these processes showed that each of these options work well.
In 2013, the Company began testing a suite of alternative oxidation methods, including chlorination, ambient pressure alkaline oxidation, fine grinding with intense cyanidation, and a procedure similar to the Albion process. The goal was to develop an economically viable process that would be less expensive to build and operate than autoclaves and that would eliminate the need for offsite concentrate sales.
Batch test results were positive and indicated that Hycroft concentrates were amenable to oxidation under atmospheric conditions, using trona to create the appropriate alkaline environment to promote oxidation. Continuous pilot plant testing on three main domains was completed at Hazen Research to confirm these results.
In 2016, the viability of the atmospheric oxidation process using trona was demonstrated in a 10 ton-per-day integrated pilot plant at the mine site. This plant included primary grinding of 3/8” material, followed by flotation, atmospheric oxidation, cyanide leaching, counter-current decantation (CCD) and Merrill-Crowe precipitation.
The objective of the current study is to determine if soda ash, refined from trona, can be used during the oxidation of sulfides in a heap leach operation prior to irrigation with cyanide solution. This process, which is the subject of a pending patent application, will accomplish two goals, namely, the liberation of gold and silver in the sulfides by oxidation, thereby increasing its recovery, and the reduction of the heap’s potential to turn acidic during cyanide leaching.
Over a decade of research into various carbonate oxidation systems has laid the foundation for the pre-oxidation and cyanidation process. A history of processes that have contributed to the development of this technology is included to show the progression of the mechanism used for oxidation as well as the logic that led to current operating procedures.
1.11.2 | Recent Heap Leach Test Work |
Hycroft explored the application of trona (or soda ash) in heap leaching sulfide and transition ores. The interest was initially in the potential of faster restoration of heaps that have become acidic by utilizing the higher solubility of trona or soda ash in water compared to lime. As an extension of this logic, the interest developed in whether trona could provide enough neutralizing power to enable heap leaching of transition and sulfide ores.
Hycroft began investigating the potential of oxidizing and leaching transition and sulfide ores with preliminary column tests. Simultaneously, Hycroft built two test pads, running ore samples from the Central and Brimstone deposits. Some of the results from these tests indicate that oxidation in a heap in the presence of trona can transform sulfide ores into transition and oxide ores (increased cyanide-soluble gold) and improve gold recovery in transition ores. The results encouraged Hycroft to continue testing the process to optimize the conditions and to better understand the mechanism of oxidation.
Based on preliminary tests, oxidation and leaching were performed in sequence in order to separate cyanide from the carbonate/bicarbonate solutions. The general procedure, similar to the current study, is discussed in detail later in this section. Oxidation was estimated by the amount of total sulfate produced.
The original oxidation target was about 45%, which was chosen based on the recovery versus oxidation plot developed from the concentrate oxidation study. The goal was to attain 55 to 70% gold recovery. The results indicate gold recovery targets were achievable at lower oxidation rates than expected. Phase II column leach test have exceeded the expectations derived from the recovery versus oxidation curve.
|
20 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The oxidation and cyanide leach tests were conducted in plexiglass cylindrical columns that were 1 foot in diameter and 4 feet high. Ore samples were crushed to nominal P100 = ½ inch, blended and loaded into the columns.
As established in Phase II testing based on preliminary experiments, oxidation and leaching had to be performed in sequence in order to separate cyanide from the carbonate/bicarbonate solutions.
Between the oxidation and leach stages, the columns were rinsed with water followed by lime-saturated water. The objective of the water rinse is to remove as much of the sulfate produced and excess carbonate alkalinity as practicable from the ore column. Sulfate that remains will react with calcium in the leach solution to precipitate CaSO4, which could form a passivation layer over the solids that are being leached. Bicarbonate has been shown to react with cyanide resulting in high cyanide consumptions. The objective of the lime-water rinse is to neutralize residual bicarbonate after the water rinse. Depending on the efficiency of the water rinse, the lime-saturated rinse may not be required but this will have to be tested to determine the trade-off between the cost of lime-water rinse and the cyanide loss.
Oxidation was performed for different periods ranging from 60 days to 180 days, by adding soda ash to the ore column and applying just enough solution to the column to keep the ore wet. This status is maintained to ensure that the interstices in the ore column are filled with oxygen-supplying air and not flooded with solution. A small amount of solution is allowed to drain at the bottom of the column, enough to collect at least 50 ml of sample each day for pH analysis, and to create a weekly composite for sulfate analysis. Oxidation was tracked by the amount of sulfate produced.
Phase III also introduced a new step to the procedure and that is to add iron (as ferric chloride) to the oxidation solutions at the start of the tests. This was based on an inference from Phase II results that oxidation of sulfides is essentially driven by the ferrous-ferric redox couple, which can be maintained at around pH 10 in a carbonate environment.
For the testing program, the bulk of solution and solids assays were performed by McClelland Laboratories in Reno. Some chemical analyses were conducted in-house (Hycroft Laboratory) for confirmation, control samples and for time-sensitive assays. M3 reviewed the chemical analysis procedures on site and found them to be in accordance with standard analytical practice.
Based on the results available so far, the projected recoveries have not changed much from the Phase 2 testing. Table 1-2 is a summary of the operating parameters and metal recoveries proposed for heap leach modelling to develop a metal production schedule.
From the overall trend observed so far in the test results, it appears that gold recoveries of 70% are possible for all the domains if the conditions are right. It is recommended that testing be continued using optimal conditions to provide experimental support for this recovery target. These optimal conditions include soda ash dosage, crush size, oxidation time, maintaining moist conditions during oxidation and ensuring access to air. During operations, testing of ore is likewise recommended to fine tune the conditions to be used in the heap. The duration of the oxidation cycle is variable and dependent on parameters found in the head assay.
|
21 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 1-2: Operating Parameters and Expected Recoveries for Heap Leaching
Domain |
Nominal* Target
Oxidation, % |
CN- Leach
Time, days |
Au Recovery,
% |
Ag Recovery,
% |
Northwest (Bay) | 31 | 60 | 55 | 55 |
West (Central) | 40 | 60 | 70 | 70 |
Southwest (Camel) Above Water Table | 40 | 60 | 70 | 70 |
Southwest (Camel) Below Water Table | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
Brimstone | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
Vortex | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
*Oxidation targets will vary depending on AuCN/AuFA
Maximum recoveries can be attained if the correct operating conditions are observed, including the following:
1. | It is essential that pH be maintained above 9.5 during the oxidation process but not higher than 11. This ensures that the catalytic action of the ferrous-ferric carbonate redox pair is prevailing. |
2. | The total carbonate alkalinity must be maintained at a minimum of 20,000 ppm, preferably up to 60,000 ppm to stabilize enough iron in solution. |
3. | During oxidation, the ore must be maintained wet because the catalytic oxidation reaction involves dissolved iron carbonate species in an electrochemical reaction. |
4. | However, the heap must not be saturated with solution to allow oxygen to migrate to the oxidation sites. Oxygen regenerates Fe(II) carbonate to Fe(III) carbonate. |
5. | When the desired oxidation level is attained, excess carbonate and bicarbonate must be rinsed out of the heap. This may be followed by a lime water rinse to neutralize any residual carbonate. This step is crucial to minimize cyanide consumption during the leach stage. |
Maintaining permeability in the heap is important during both oxidation and leach stage.
Metallurgical testing is ongoing, with three 20-ft columns and three large-scale columns using the old carbon columns (CIC). Also, tails assays are pending for three of the columns that were not included in this report. At the conclusion of these tests and data analyses, M3 will prepare a technical memorandum, which will serve as an addendum to this Technical Report Summary.
1.12 | Mineral Resource Estimate |
1.12.1 | Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources |
Hycroft Mining Corp. (HMC) retained SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. to complete a mineral resource estimate for the Hycroft Project. This Technical Report Summary provides a mineral resource estimate and classification of resources reported in accordance with the New Mining Rules.
The estimates of Mineral Resources may be materially affected if mining, metallurgical, or infrastructure factors change from those currently anticipated at the Hycroft Mine. Estimates of inferred mineral resources have significant geological uncertainty and it should not be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will be converted to the measured or indicated categories. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not meet the threshold for reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves.
|
22 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 1-3: Hycroft Heap Leach Mineral Resource Estimate, June 30, 2019 – SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
Classification | Material | Tons | Contained Grade | Contained Metal | ||||
(kt) | AuFa OPT | AuCn OPT | AgFa OPT | S% | Au (koz) | Ag (koz) | ||
Oxide | 5,650 | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.224 | 1.79 | 60 | 1,267 | |
Measured | Transition | 21,746 | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.186 | 1.80 | 232 | 4,038 |
Sulfide | 37,512 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.273 | 1.85 | 356 | 10,248 | |
64,908 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.240 | 1.83 | 649 | 15,554 | ||
Oxide | 2,619 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.229 | 1.89 | 17 | 599 | |
Indicated | Transition | 16,293 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.329 | 1.79 | 117 | 5,369 |
Sulfide | 310,102 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.282 | 1.81 | 2,916 | 87,470 | |
329,014 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.284 | 1.81 | 3,050 | 93,438 | ||
Measured | Oxide | 8,268 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.226 | 1.82 | 77 | 1,867 |
and | Transition | 38,039 | 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.247 | 1.80 | 349 | 9,407 |
Indicated | Sulfide | 347,614 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.281 | 1.81 | 3,272 | 97,718 |
393,922 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.277 | 1.81 | 3,699 | 108,992 | ||
Oxide | 6,191 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.267 | 1.72 | 44 | 1,651 | |
Transition | 20,148 | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.276 | 1.74 | 156 | 5,570 | |
Inferred | Sulfide | 568,704 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.214 | 1.76 | 5,516 | 121,930 |
Fill | 4,018 | 0.013 | 0.008 | 0.150 | 0.63 | 53 | 603 | |
599,062 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.217 | 1.76 | 5,769 | 129,754 |
Source: SRK, 2019
· | Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not meet the threshold for reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves; |
· | Open pit resources stated as contained within a potentially economically minable open pit; pit optimization was based on assumed prices for gold of US$1,400/oz, and for silver of US$18/oz, variable Au and Ag Recoveries based on geo-metallurgical domains, a mining cost of US$1.45/t, variable ore processing costs based on geo-metallurgical domains, and G&A cost of US$0.65/t, and a pit slope of 45 degrees; |
· | Open pit resources are reported based on calculated NSR block values and the cutoff therefore varies from block to block. The NSR incorporates Au and Ag sales costs of US$0.75/oz beyond the costs used for pit optimization; |
· | Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding; |
· | Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves. |
1.13 | Mineral Reserve Estimate |
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves have been calculated on operational economics and estimates for costs for Hycroft. HMC verified the economic pit limits of the mineral reserve estimate using Geovia Whittle® 4.5.5 software. The Hycroft Mineral Reserve Estimates are not materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, political or other relevant issues.
Mineral Reserves at Hycroft have been determined by applying current economic criteria that are valid for the Hycroft mine. These criteria limitations have been applied to the resource model to determine which part of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource is economically extractable. The reported mineral reserves conform to estimation and classification requirements as set out by the New Mining Rules of Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves.
Table 1-4 summarizes the Hycroft reserves as of June 30th, 2019, estimated using a gold price of $1,200 per ounce and silver price of $16.50 per ounce, as well as operating costs and applicable recoveries. The gold and silver prices used in estimating reserves are lower than the trailing 3-year average price of $1,272.66 per ounce for gold and $16.53
|
23 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
per ounce for silver. These have been fully scheduled in a LOM plan and have been shown to demonstrate viable economic extraction. The reference point for these mineral reserves is ore delivered to the leach pad and does not include reductions attributed to anticipated leach recoveries. The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are inclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to produce these Mineral Reserves.
Table 1-4: Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves – June 30, 2019
Tons | Grades, oz/t | Contained Oz (000s) | |||
(000s) | Au | Ag | Au | Ag | |
Proven (Heap Leach) | |||||
Oxide ROM | 22,476 | 0.009 | 0.230 | 205 | 5,211 |
Transition ROM | 4,095 | 0.008 | 0.190 | 32 | 759 |
Oxide ¾” Crushed | 15,252 | 0.012 | 0.720 | 184 | 10,926 |
Transition ¾” Crushed | 4,399 | 0.005 | 0.310 | 24 | 1,367 |
Transition ½” Crushed | 90,206 | 0.011 | 0.450 | 948 | 40,365 |
Sulfide ½” Crushed | 250,906 | 0.012 | 0.470 | 2,940 | 116,818 |
Total Proven Heap Leach | 387,334 | 0.011 | 0.450 | 4,333 | 175,446 |
Probable (Heap Leach) | |||||
Oxide ROM | 13,145 | 0.005 | 0.230 | 71 | 3,005 |
Transition ROM | 3,660 | 0.005 | 0.140 | 20 | 505 |
Oxide ¾” Crushed | 3,001 | 0.010 | 0.690 | 29 | 2,063 |
Transition ¾” Crushed | 1,304 | 0.004 | 0.490 | 5 | 644 |
Transition ½” Crushed | 52,467 | 0.010 | 0.460 | 504 | 24,043 |
Sulfide ½” Crushed | 663,071 | 0.010 | 0.410 | 6,936 | 272,271 |
Total Probable Heap Leach | 736,648 | 0.010 | 0.410 | 7,565 | 302,531 |
Total Probable Sulfide Stockpile ½” Crushed | 9,079 | 0.011 | 0.380 | 98 | 3,422 |
TOTAL PROVEN & PROBABLE MINERAL RESERVES | 1,133,061 | 0.011 | 0.425 | 11,996 | 481,399 |
Waste | 1,321,853 | ||||
Total Tons | 2,454,914 | ||||
Strip Ratio | 1.17 |
· | Mineral Reserves estimated according to the New Mining Rules definitions. |
· | Mineral Reserves estimated at $1,200/oz Au and $16.50/oz Ag. |
· | Cut-off grades used a Net Smelter Return (NSR) calculation. |
· | Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding. |
1.14 | Mining Methods |
Hycroft mining operations are currently planned for typical truck and shovel open pit mining methods. Production is scheduled to start at 5 million tons in year one, ramp up to 20 million tons in year two, 36 million in year three, 60 million tons in year four, 75 million in year five, and 85 million in year six. Another ramp-up in production occurs in year 10 to 100 million tons as the larger phases need stripping. This production remains steady until the later years before the end of mining when it starts to ramp down as stripping is no longer required. The life of mine stripping ratio (waste to ore) is 1.17:1.
|
24 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Over the life of the mine, ore routing is based on optimal destination determination accounting for all applicable costs, recoveries, and limits (i.e. crushing capacity). The following ore routing is available to each block:
· | Oxide Ore | - ROM heap leach & ¾” crushed heap leach |
· | Transitional Ore | - ROM heap leach, ¾” crushed heap leach, ½” crushed heap leach |
· | Sulfide Ore | - ½” crushed heap leach |
Mining will extend below the current water surface and dewatering is planned to allow mining to extend to final pit elevations.
The first ramp up in production is achieved with contract mining support and then mid-year 2 through mid-year 7 is completed with contract mining. Contract mining considers full-service contract mining with the contractor providing all equipment, operators, maintainers, and operations supervision.
In Year 6 mining will start to transition back to owner fleets consisting of larger 55-cubic-yard excavators and 320-t class trucks as production ramps up. Blasting services will be performed by a contractor for the life of the mine. Blast-hole drills will be capable of drilling up to 9-7/8” diameter holes and 40-ft benches. Track dozers, wheel dozers, front-end loaders, graders, water trucks, and service vehicles support the mining operation. By mid-year 7 all mining has transitioned to owner mining.
1.15 | Recovery Methods |
A significant portion of gold in the Hycroft ore is refractory due to its association with pyrite, marcasite and other sulfides. About 94% of the ore contains enough refractory gold to economically justify pretreatment by pre-oxidation prior to cyanide leaching.
The heap leach operation is designed to treat three categories of ore, classified as described below. The process methods applied to Ore Category 3 are covered by a pending patent application.
· | Ore Category 1 (ROM ore) – lower grade ore with high cyanide soluble gold is routed directly to the leach pad and cyanide leached to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 4% of the ore over the life of mine. The gold contents are highly soluble and the remaining refractory gold contents are not projected to justify the time and expense of a pre-oxidation step, therefore it will be stacked as ‘ROM’. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘ROM oxide’ or ‘ROM transition’. | |
· | Ore Category 2 (3/4” Crushed ore) – higher grade ore with high cyanide soluble gold is crushed to a P80 of ¾” and cyanide leached to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 2% of the ore over the life of mine. The gold contents are highly soluble, but additional size reduction is expected to increase gold and silver recovery enough to justify the additional expense. The remaining refractory gold contents are not projected to justify the time and expense of a full pre-oxidation cycle. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘3/4” crushed oxide’ or ‘3/4” crushed transition’. | |
· | Ore Category 3 (1/2” Crushed ore) – low cyanide soluble ratio ores are crushed to a P80 of ½”. The crushed ore is mixed with soda ash to induce an alkaline ‘pre-oxidation’ process. After the oxidation process has been completed to the desired extent, the ore will be rinsed sequentially with water and saturated lime solution, and then leached with cyanide to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 94% of the ore over the life of the mine. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘1/2” crushed sulfide’ or ‘1/2” crushed transition’. |
Pregnant solution from the heap leach will be processed by two existing Merrill-Crowe zinc-cementation facilities.
|
25 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The Hycroft Mine is projected to begin producing gold and silver from low-grade oxide ore and sulfide ore by cyanide heap leaching in the third quarter of 2019. Compared to a traditional oxide heap leach, cash flow is delayed by a length of time equivalent to the length of the dedicated pre-oxidation process.
Table 1-5: Metal Recoveries Used for Mass Balance Simulation
Metal | Head Grade | Heap Leach Recovery, % |
Au | 0.011 oz/t | 65 |
Ag | 0.425 oz/t | 71 |
The mine plan was based on recovery and operating cost models, which were also used in the financial analysis in this study. It yielded life-of-mine average head grades of 0.011 oz/t Au, 0.425 oz/t Ag and 1.92% sulfur. Predicted recoveries vary from ore to ore, depending on Au, Ag and sulfide-sulfur contents, as discussed in detail in Section 10 of this report.
HMC plans to ramp up production over five years to the design crushed ore tonnage of 36 million tons per year, starting with 4.5 million tons in 2019, increasing to 12.6 million tons in 2020, 23.3 million tons in 2021, and reaching the target 36 million tons per year by 2024. As discussed above, the yearly tonnage will be supplemented by a small percentage of ore that will be placed and leached as run-of-mine ore.
For the design, M3 uses an availability factor of 75% for the primary crusher, and 85% for the secondary and tertiary crushers if feed bins are used. These design availability factors are common for current and recent projects at M3 and in line with general vendor specifications. The stacking system that will be operational in Year 2024 will have an availability of 85%, which would be dictated by the crushing plant.
|
26 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 1-1: Simplified Process Flow Diagram for the Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Operation
|
27 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.15.1 | Crushing Plant Design |
The crushing system is designed to run a nominal capacity of 98,630 stpd to attain the 36 million tons per year target. The crushing system includes one primary crusher (60”x113”), two secondary crushers (XL1300 standard), and two tertiary crushers (XL1300 short head). The existing facility will be sufficient during the ramp-up period, but will require addition of two more tertiary crushers to attain the design capacity. Processing parameters in the following discussions are derived from simulations of the full plant at the design capacity. The nominal capacity was calculated at the 80th percentile hardness to allow for most of the hardness fluctuations on a day-to-day basis. Yearly average capacities were calculated at the median hardness.
Pit ore being routed as either ¾” crushed or ½” crushed ore will be transported to the primary crusher dump pocket via haul truck. Prior to the primary crusher each truck being routed as ½” crushed ore will pass under a reagent silo where a pre-determined amount of soda ash will be added to the ore. The ore will proceed through three stages of crushing to exit the tertiary crushers at a nominal P80 crush size of approximately ½”. The crushed ore will then be stacked on the heap leach pads.
1.15.1 | Pre-Oxidation |
Pre-oxidation of sulfide and transition ore (crushed to ½”) will begin at the crusher using in-situ moisture and soda ash. The soda ash requirement for the ore is relative to the sulfide-sulfur content of the ore. Regular sampling of mined material will allow reagent addition control; for the life of mine the average soda ash consumption is projected to be 14.5 lbs per ton of placed ore.
The addition of soda ash creates an alkaline environment (60,000 ppm of total Alkalinity, pH 10+) that allows some of the ferrous and ferric ions to remain in solution by complexing with carbonate ions. As discussed in Section 10, the presence of ferrous and ferric carbonate complexes for a redox pair that enhances the oxidation of iron sulfides in an heterogenous electrochemical reaction.
As the reaction proceeds, soda ash will be consumed to neutralize the resultant acid and additional soda ash will be introduced to maintain optimal reaction conditions.
Once ore has been placed on the heap, additional soda ash solution will be applied to bring the ore to field capacity (8 – 10% moisture). The solution in the heap will be replenished on a regular basis using soda ash solution in order to offset evaporation and carbonate consumption. Soda ash solution will be pumped through pipes/tubing that are separate from the lixiviant solution system.
The dissolved oxygen required for the reaction will be replenished through solution to air contact; the oxygen will be monitored inside the heap using embedded recoverable sensors. If required, air inflow can be aided by installing large perforated piping at the bottom of each panel, with ends protruding out of the heap.
Pre-oxidation duration will be determined by the characteristics of the ore and the measured extent of oxidation based upon sulfate production. The extent of oxidation will be determined by the target recoveries for each domain and the initial cyanide soluble gold, which is translated to degrees of oxidation already achieved. The number of days required to attain target oxidation is dependent upon the sulfide-sulfur content of the ore with, higher sulfide-sulfur corresponding to longer oxidation cycles. The majority of the ore is expected to take between 30 and 120 days to finish pre-oxidation. This is measured between the day that soda ash is introduced to the ore at the crusher and the day that the ‘rinse’ cycle begins for the panel.
|
28 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.15.2 | Rinse Cycle |
Ore that has undergone a pre-oxidation cycle must be rinsed, first with water, then with a saturated lime solution prior to the commencement of cyanidation. The purpose of the rinse is to wash down as much sulfate and bicarbonate, as possible.
If not removed, sulfate will precipitate as CaSO4 during the leach cycle and potentially form a passivation layer against cyanidation. Bicarbonate, on the other hand, has been shown to react with cyanide to form HCN, which is not active in leaching and eventually escapes from solution, thereby increasing the cyanide consumption. The amount of rinse water required would at least be one pore volume replacement, but this should be monitored until the sulfate and alkalinity levels in the rinse water levels off at low concentrations, e.g., 2,000 ppm sulfate and 2,500 ppm total alkalinity.
Saturated lime water may be applied to scavenge the residual bicarbonate in the heap. The added complexity and cost of saturated lime water will have to be weighed against the savings in cyanide consumption that results. If the remaining bicarbonate is low enough or the leach solution has enough alkalinity that the pH can be maintained at 10.5, then most of the bicarbonate will be converted to carbonate, which does not react with cyanide. If used, the lime-saturated water will be applied to panels that have undergone pre-oxidation at a rate of 0.0025 gpm/ft2, until one or two pore volumes have been displaced.
Rinse solutions will be supplied using the same piping that delivers lixiviant during the leach phase. Displaced solution will be sent to the soda ash recycle pond.
1.15.3 | Heap Leach Cyanidation |
The cyanidation conditions for all placed ore will be the same regardless of crush size or the use of pre-oxidation. The duration that these conditions are maintained is dependent on the category to which the ore belongs. For panels under active leach, a cyanide concentration of 1.0 lb/ton of solution will be maintained. The pH will be controlled using lime.
Oxide and transition material that will be leached as ROM will proceed directly from the pit to the heap and begin cyanide leach without undergoing pre-oxidation or rinse. A small percentage of oxide and transition material will be directed to the crushing plant to be reduced to a P80 of ¾” before being stacked and commencing cyanide leach. Ores from both of these categories are expected to undergo a 200-day primary leach cycle using a conservative 3:1 solution to ore ratio and an application rate of 0.0025 gpm/ft2.
Sulfides and a portion of the transition material will be reduced to a P80 of ½” before undergoing the pre-oxidation and rinse processes on the heap. At the conclusion of the rinse, a nominal 60-day primary leach cycle will begin. A 1:1 solution to ore ratio and an application rate of 0.0025 gpm/ft2 will be used.
1.15.4 | Merrill-Crowe and Refinery |
Due to the high silver content of the pregnant solution, gold and silver will be recovered by zinc cementation. Hycroft Mining has two Merrill-Crowe plants that are used to process the pregnant solution from the heap leach operation. The older plant has a capacity of 4,500 gpm. The newer plant is considerably larger, with a capacity at present of 21,500 gpm, for the total of 26,000 gpm capacity.
The wet filter cakes from the low-grade and high-grade Merrill-Crowe circuits will be transferred to retort pans, which are then put into a retort furnace to remove water and mercury. Water and then mercury are sequentially volatilized from the precipitate by heating the precipitate under a partial vacuum. The exhaust gases pass through multiple stages of condensers that drain mercury and water to a collection vessel. The last traces of mercury are removed from the retort gas by a packed bed of sulfur-impregnated carbon before being released to the atmosphere. The retorts are typically operated batch-wise, with a cycle time of approximately 18 hours.
|
29 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The dried filter cake will be mixed with flux and then transferred to an electric arc furnace where it is smelted to produce doré.
1.15.5 | Water Balance and Solution Management |
Hycroft is currently permitted to use fresh water at a yearly average rate of 12,700 gpm. The estimated fresh water requirement is 3,189 gpm when the heap leach is operating.
Water balance and solution management for the Hycroft operation is complicated by the gradual buildup of sodium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate to a steady-state concentration in the reclaimed water. Sulfate ions were seen in some tests to slow down the sulfide oxidation reaction. Because of this, fresh water addition to the soda ash recycle pond is designed to maximize the dilution of sulfate and bicarbonate ions in the pre-oxidation circuit.
Approximately 690 gpm of the fresh water is allocated for mine dust suppression. All fresh water will be drawn from existing wells that have been operated to supply the property in the past.
1.16 | Project Infrastructure |
The future infrastructure for the Hycroft heap leach project considers the existing infrastructure and the requirements of the project. Currently on site are administrative buildings, mobile equipment maintenance shops, two Merrill-Crowe processing plants, a three-stage crushing system, a refinery and heap leach pads. The site also has a modern communications system provided by microwave facilities, including cellular communications. Major infrastructure categories to be constructed for the project include:
• | Additional leach pad space and associated ponds, piping and other facilities |
• | Conveying and stacking |
• | Crushing system refurbishments |
• | Rail siding |
Fresh water will be obtained from existing active and inactive production wells in a field west of the mine, and from mine dewatering. Plant water requirements are projected to fall well below the current permitted water rights.
A rail siding will be constructed that will access the nearby main east-west rail line, which is operated by Union Pacific. The rail siding will be used to receive large quantities of bulk commodities such as soda ash and lime at a reduced cost of transportation versus trucking, while reducing the potential environmental and safety hazards associated with truck transportation. M3 has provided the design for the rail unloading and materials handling facilities at the rail siding.
1.17 | Market Studies and Contracts |
Contracts for major consumables including fuel, lime, soda ash, cyanide and electricity are in place for the current operation. Transportation contracts are also in place for delivery of these consumable products. These contracts are renewed on an annual, biennial, triennial or quinquennial basis. The general terms and charges of these contracts are within industry standards.
Gold and silver produced at Hycroft will be sold as doré. Doré is shipped to refineries, refined and then sold at current spot prices. Marketing of doré is straightforward and arranged through continuing contractual relationships with major refineries for secure transportation of metal and refining. A contract with a refinery in Salt Lake is in place through December 2020. The cost for shipping and refining doré is in accordance with industry standards.
|
30 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
1.18 | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impacts |
Permitting for a heap leach expansion that included expanded heap leach, open pits, and waste rock facilities was completed in August 2012 with the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”) authorizing the proposed actions. The permits required to construct and operate the crushing system and to begin mill construction were also received from the BLM and NDEP in 2012. An Environmental Assessment (“EA”) analyzing a rail spur, open pit expansion and processing complex, that includes a TMF and Heap Leach Facility, was completed and a record of decision received in January 2015.
Studies supporting permitting of a long-term TMF, and a deeper open pit, such as groundwater characterization, waste rock characterization, and archaeological and biological surveys, began late in 2009. All field work has been completed for these programs. The study information was included in a Plan of Operations that was submitted to the BLM in April 2014, requiring a supplemental EIS. Approvals are anticipated to be received for the supplemental EIS in 2019.
A Plan of Operations amendment for construction of a new leach pad was submitted to, and approved by, the BLM in July 2019. A Water Pollution Control Permit modification was submitted to NDEP in March 2019 for the leach pad expansion and is under review. It is expected a decision for the water pollution control permit will be received by the end of 2019. Future expansion activities described in this Technical Report Summary, particularly construction of additional heap leach pad space to accommodate the life of mine heap leach plan, will require multiple federal, state and local permits.
The existing Hycroft Mine workforce lives mainly in Winnemucca (Humboldt County) and Lovelock (Pershing County); this will likely remain the same for the heap leach project detailed in this report. Initial surveys indicate that the town of Winnemucca has the required infrastructure (shopping, emergency services, schools, etc.) to support the maximum workforce and dependents.
1.18.1 | Mine Closure and Sustainability |
Mine closure and reclamation will be performed in accordance with BLM and State of Nevada regulations and guidelines. Particular attention will be paid to leaving a post-mining land configuration that minimizes visual impact. The Company has posted surety bonds partially backed by restricted cash balances to cover its closure obligations. Future increases in reclamation bonding will either be through surety bonds supported by restricted cash balances or by letters of credit issued by banks.
The facility expansions have been and will continue to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed state and federal design criteria. Waste rock facilities are evaluated for their potential to release pollutants and monitored routinely and in accordance with an approved waste rock management plan.
All buildings and facilities not identified for a post-mining use will be removed from the site during the salvage and site demolition phase.
1.19 | Capital and Operating Costs |
The initial capital cost for the heap leach is estimated to be $230.8 million. Initial capital includes new leach pad construction, rail unloading and handling facilities for reagents, a stacking and conveying system, dewatering and crusher improvements. Hycroft began restart operations with its existing fleet as well as using a mining contractor to assist with crusher ore rehandle.
This estimate assumes all capital is on a go-forward basis. In general, M3 based this capital cost estimate on its knowledge and experience of similar facilities and work in similar locations. Resources available to M3 included recent
|
31 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
cost data collected for a nearby mining project and for similar facilities that have been constructed, are under construction, or are being designed or studied in other locations.
The initial capital cost is broken down below by direct, indirect, and owner’s costs. All capital costs are expressed in second quarter 2019 US dollars.
Table 1-6: Initial Capital Cost Breakdown
TOTAL ($M) | |
Direct & Indirect | $223.2 |
Owner’s cost | $7.6 |
Totals | $230.8 |
A contingency of 10% ($3,263,482 million) has been included in the M3 capital cost estimate. The accuracy of this estimate for those items identified in the scope-of work is estimated to be within the range of plus 15% to minus 15%. Accuracy is an issue separate from contingency; the latter accounts for undeveloped scope and insufficient data (e.g., geotechnical data).
HMC, through its EPCM agent, will order major material supplies (e.g., structural and mechanical steelwork) as well as bulk orders (e.g., piping and electrical). These will be issued to construction contractors on site using strict inventory control.
Operating costs were developed on a unit cost and quantity basis utilizing current labor and commodity prevailing pricing at the time of the study, first principles and similar operation comparisons. Power rates have been provided by the local electrical utility company. Data used in the analysis was derived from the internal data bases collected over a number of years. In some cases, the data was factored and/or escalated to Q2 2019 dollars.
Table 1-7: Life of Mine Operating Cost per Ton Processed
Operating Costs | |
Mining cost/ton processed | $ 3.64 |
Process cost/ton processed | $ 4.01 |
G&A cost/ton processed (incl. Net Proceeds Tax, Royalties & Refining) | $ 0.86 |
Total operating cost/ton processed | $ 8.52 |
1.20 | Economic Analysis |
The base case economic analysis indicates that the project has an after-tax Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) of 148.6% with a payback period of 2.5 years and with an after-tax Net Present Value (“NPV”) of $2.1 billion at a 5% discount rate. The economics incorporate updated metallurgical test work and operating costs and are based on long-term prices of $1,300 per ounce of gold and $17.33 per ounce of silver. The project economics are sensitive to metal price fluctuations, as demonstrated in Table 1-8.
|
32 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 1-8: Metal Price Sensitivity of the LOM Heap Leach Operations (after tax)
Case | Metal Prices ($/oz.) | NPV @ 0% | NPV @ 5% | After Tax IRR | |
Au | Ag | $ Billions | $ Billions | ||
1 | $1,200 | $16.50 | $4.2 | $1.7 | 80.2% |
2 | $1,300 | $17.33 | $5.1 | $2.1 | 148.6% |
3 | $1,400 | $18.67 | $6.1 | $2.6 | 307.9% |
4 | $1,500 | $20.00 | $7.1 | $3.0 | N/A |
1. | Downside Price (Reserve Price) |
2. | Financial Base Case |
3. | Moderate Price |
4. | Upside Price |
In addition to metal prices, the project is sensitive to capital and operating costs as shown in Table 1-9.
Table 1-9: Operating and Capital Cost Sensitivity of the LOM Heap Leach Operations (after tax), NPV @ 5%
20%
Decrease |
10%
Decrease |
Base
Case |
10%
Increase |
20%
Increase |
|
Mining Cost | $2.41B | $2.25B | $2.1B | $1.91B | $1.75B |
Processing Cost | $2.43B | $2.26B | $1.90B | $1.72B | |
Capital Expenditures | $2.18B | $2.13B | $2.03B | $1.98B |
1.21 | Conclusions and Recommendations |
Based on the findings of this feasibility study, it has been concluded that the Hycroft Heap Leach Project would be an economically viable project under the base case as well as reserve case financial parameters. It is recommended that HMC proceed with the restart of the heap leach operations as described in this report.
1.21.1 | Prepared in Accordance with US SEC’s New Mining Rules Under Subpart 1300 and Item 601 (96)(B)(iii) |
The drill hole database and assaying quality for the Hycroft Mine are sufficient for the determination of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. Additionally, the geological interpretations, metallurgical assumptions, and spatial drilling densities are sufficient to define and state Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves for Hycroft.
All of the aforementioned categories are prepared in accordance with the resource classification pursuant to the SEC’s new mining rules under subpart 1300 and item 601 (96)(B)(iii) of Regulation S-K (the “New Mining Rules”).
|
33 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
2 | Introduction |
2.1 | Purpose and Basis of Report |
This Technical Report Summary was prepared and is issued by M3 Engineering & Technology Corp. in association with SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. and Hycroft Mining Corporation, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Denver, Colorado.
This Technical Report Summary has been prepared to describe the feasibility of extracting and processing the large transition and sulfide reserve at the Hycroft property. A feasibility study has been completed with the goal of assessing the economic benefit of operating a heap leach facility capable of oxidizing and leaching the transition and sulfide reserves in addition to the traditional heap leach process recently employed at the mine. The study indicates that a heap leach process, which is the subject of a pending patent application, could be operated to economically extract and process the transition and sulfide reserves concurrently with the heap leach oxide reserve.
All material at Hycroft has been classified according to, and prepared in accordance with, the resource classification pursuant to the SEC’s new mining rules under subpart 1300 and item 601 (96)(B)(iii) of Regulation S-K (the “New Mining Rules”).
2.2 | Sources of Information |
The scope of this study included a review of pertinent technical reports and data in the possession of M3, SRK and Hycroft Mining relative to metallurgical test results, the general setting, geology, project history, exploration activities and results, methodology, quality assurance, interpretations, and Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. Observations and interpretations of geostatistics, geology, grade estimation, and determination of mineralized trends at Hycroft have been generated by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. and Hycroft Mining. The Hycroft model has been generated and evaluated with Geovia GEMS for block modeling, Sage2001 for variography and X10-Geo for statistical analysis. Economic pit limits were determined with Geovia Whittle® 4.5.5 Strategic Planning software, the pit was designed using Vulcan 10.1 and the mine schedule was developed using Minemax Scheduler Professional Version 6.5.2.24696.
2.3 | Qualified Persons and Site Visits |
2.3.1 | M3 Engineering & Technology |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of employees of M3 engineering who were responsible for project management, recovery methods, process plant operating and maintenance costs, capital cost estimate and overall compilation of this report. M3 representatives visit the mine regularly with the most recent visit being on June 7, 2019.
2.3.2 | Steven Newman, Registered Member SME |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of Steven Newman, SME Registered Member, Director of Feasibility Studies of HMC. Mr. Newman is responsible for reserves, long-term mine planning and the associated feasibility studies for Hycroft. Mr. Newman works on site on a weekly basis.
2.3.3 | Brooke Miller Clarkson, CPG |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of Brooke Miller Clarkson, CPG, a SRK Senior Consultant. Ms. Clarkson is responsible for compilation of the drill hole database, review and verification of drill hole data and construction of the geologic models. Ms. Clarkson last visited site on June 5, 2017.
|
34 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
2.3.4 | Richard F. DeLong, P. Geo |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of Richard F. DeLong, P.Geo, President of EM Strategies, Environmental Consultants. Mr. DeLong is responsible for verification and oversight of the environmental practices and permitting as well as providing consulting assistance and advice on major environmental matters including Environmental Studies. Mr. DeLong’s last visit to site was on July 27, 2018.
2.3.5 | Tim Carew, P. Geo |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of Tim Carew, P.Geo, a SRK Principal Consultant. Mr. Carew is responsible for resource estimation. Mr. Carew’s last visit to site was on July 27, 2018.
2.3.6 | Matt Hartmann, MScMEM, P.G., MAusIMM, Registered Member SME |
Information in this Technical Report Summary has been prepared under the supervision of Matt Hartmann, Principal Consultant with SRK. Mr. Hartmann is responsible for hydrogeology and mine dewatering. Mr. Hartmann has been involved in hydrogeologic studies at the Hycroft mine since 2010, his most recent visit to site was on April 23, 2019.
2.3.7 | Tabulation |
Table 2-1 shows a tabulation of the qualified persons and their responsibilities.
Table 2-1: List of Qualified Persons
QP Name | Company | Qualification | Site Visit | Area of Responsibility |
M3 Engineering & Technology Corporation, Tucson, AZ | PE | Several times, last visit June 7, 2019 | Sections 2, 10, 14, 15, 19, 24, 25 and corresponding subsections of 1, 18, 22 and 23. | |
Steve Newman | Hycroft Mining Corporation, Denver, CO | Registered Member SME | On site weekly | Sections 3, 4, 5, 7.8, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21 and corresponding subsections of 1, 18, 22 and 23. |
Brooke Miller Clarkson | SRK, Reno, NV | CPG | June 5, 2017 | Sections 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 8, 9, and 23.1. |
Richard F. DeLong | EM Strategies, Reno, NV | P. Geo. | July 27, 2018 | Section 3.3, 3.4, 17 and corresponding subsections of 1, 22 and 23. |
Tim Carew | SRK, Reno, NV | P. Geo. | July 27, 2018 | Section 1.12, 11 and 22.1. |
Matt Hartmann | SRK, Denver, CO | Member AusIMM, Registered Member SME | April 23, 2019 | Sections 7.9, 13.6, and 18.3.1. |
2.4 | Terms of Reference |
Unless stated otherwise, all volumes and grades are in US customary units and currencies are expressed in constant Q2 2019 US dollars. Distances are expressed in US customary units.
This report is written specifically for the Hycroft Mine operation.
2.5 | Units and Abbreviations |
Units and abbreviations used in this report are as shown in Table 2-2.
|
35 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 2-2: List of Units and Abbreviations
$ | United States dollar(s) |
$CAD | Canadian dollar(s) |
°C | Degree Celsius |
°F | Degree Fahrenheit |
µm | micrometer(s) |
3D | Three dimensional |
AA | Atomic absorption |
AAO | Atmosphere Alkaline Oxidation |
Ag | Silver |
ALS | Auld Lang Syne |
HMC | Hycroft Mining Corporation |
Au | Gold |
Au Eq | Gold Equivalent |
Avg | Average |
BAPC | Bureau of Air Pollution Control |
BLM | Bureau of Land Management |
BMRR | Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation |
BSDW | Bureau of Safe Drinking Water |
BWI | Bond Work Index |
BSMM | Bureau of Sustainable Materials Management |
BWPC | Bureau of Water Pollution Control |
CCD | Counter Current Decantation |
CIC | Carbon-in-column |
CNI | Call & Nicholas |
CoG | Cut-off grade |
Duval | Duval Corporation |
EA | Environmental Assessment |
EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
El | Elevation |
EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
EPCM | Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management |
FCC | Federal Communication Commission |
FEL | Front-end loaders |
Ft | Foot |
ft2 | Square foot |
ft3 | Cubic foot |
ft3/day | Cubic feet per day |
ft3/sec | Cubic feet per second |
G | Gram(s) |
Gal | US gallon |
GIS | Geographical Information Services |
Gpm | US gallon per minute |
Gps | Global positioning system |
H | Hour(s) |
h/d | Hours per day |
Ha | Hectare |
HDPE | High Density Polyethylene |
HDR | HDR, Inc. |
Hp | Horsepower |
HRDI | Hycroft Resources & Development Inc. |
ID3 | Inverse Distance Cubed |
IDS | International Directional Services |
IDW | Inverse Distance Weighted |
In | Inch(es) |
in/yr | Inch(es) per year |
IRR | Internal rate of return |
ISO | International Standards Organization |
kV | Kilovolt |
kVa | Kilovolt x amps |
kW | Kilowatt |
kWh | Kilowatt hour |
kWh/t | Kilowatt hour per ton |
Lb | Pound |
LOM | Life-of-Mine |
M | Million(s) |
MDA | Mine Development Associates |
MDE | Maximum Design Earthquake |
MDL | Method Detection Limit |
MEG | Mineral Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry |
MG | Million Gallons |
MGT | Million Gross Tons |
Mi | Mile(s) |
Min | Minute(s) |
Mo | month(s) |
Moz | million troy ounces |
Mph | miles per hour |
MRDI | Mineral Resources Development Inc. |
Mt | Metric tonne (2200 lb) |
MVAR | Mega Volt Ampere Reactive |
MW | Megawatt |
MWh | Megawatt hour |
MWMP | Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure |
NAD | North American Datum |
NDEP | Nevada Division of Environmental Protection |
NDOW | Nevada Department of Wildlife |
NDWR | Nevada Division of Water Resources |
NN | Nearest Neighbor |
NPI | Net Profit Interest |
NPV | Net Present Value |
NSR | Net Smelter Return |
NV | Nevada |
OK | Ordinary Kriging |
Opt/OPT | Troy Ounce per short ton |
oz | Troy ounce unless otherwise noted |
(Non)PAG | (Non) Potentially acid generating |
PAX | Potassium Amyl Xanthate |
pcf | Pounds per cubic foot |
PFDS | Precipitation Frequency Data Server |
|
36 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
POX | Pressure Oxidation |
Ppm/PPM | Parts per million |
psf | Pounds per square foot |
psi | Pounds per square inch |
PVC | Polyvinyl Chloride |
QA | Quality assurance |
QC | Quality control |
QP | Qualified Person |
RC | Reverse Circulation |
ROM | Run-of-Mine |
ROW | Right-of-Way |
RQD | Rock Quality Designation |
SAG | Semi-Autogenous Grinding |
SEC | U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |
SME | Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration |
SRK | SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. |
SSDS | Small scale, direct shear |
st | Short ton (US) (2000 lb) |
t | Short ton (US) (2000 lb) |
t/h | Short tons per hour (US) |
t/y | Short tons per year (US) |
TMF | Tailing Management Facility |
tpd | Short tons per day (US) |
TR | Technical Release |
UCL | Upper control limit |
µm | micrometer |
USDA | United States Department of Agriculture |
USFWS | United States Fish and Wildlife Service |
USMX | U.S. Steel Exploration |
UTM | Universal Transverse Mercator |
V | Volt |
VFD | Variable Frequency Drive |
W | Watts |
WRF | Waste Rock Fill |
yd3 | Cubic yard |
Yr | Year(s) |
|
37 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
3 | Property Description and Location |
The Hycroft Mine is a gold and silver mining and processing operation located 54 miles west of Winnemucca in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada, as shown in Figure 3-1. The Hycroft property is accessible via Nevada State Route 49 (Jungo Road), an all-weather, unpaved road that is maintained by Humboldt County and HRDI. A major east-west railway runs immediately adjacent to the property.
The mine property straddles Townships 34, 35, 35½ and 36 North and Ranges 28, 29 and 30 East (MDB&M) with an approximate latitude 40°52’ north and longitude 118°41’ west. The mine is situated on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains on the eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert.
The use of water at Hycroft is controlled by eleven separate water right permits administered by the NDWR. These permits are held in ownership either by HRDI or by other private parties and leased to HRDI. HRDI controls a total of 21,457.95 acre feet per year (6.99 billion gallons per year) in the Black Rock Desert Hydrographic Basin.
Gold production began on the property in 1983. Through a series of permitting actions with the BLM and NDEP, HMC has incorporated all existing mining components into a current Reclamation Plan with an associated bonding instrument. As of June 30, 2019, the posted surety bond for site reclamation was $58.3 million.
The Hycroft property consists of 30 private parcels that comprise approximately 1,912 acres, and 3,247 unpatented mining claims that encompass approximately 68,759 acres. The mining claims of Hycroft are comprised of two primary properties, Crofoot and Lewis. The Crofoot and Lewis properties together include approximately 11,829 acres. The Crofoot property covers approximately 3,500 acres and is virtually surrounded by the Lewis property of 8,400 acres.
On site facilities include administration buildings, a mobile maintenance shop, light vehicle maintenance shop, warehouse, leach pads, crushing system, two Merrill-Crowe process plants and a refinery. The components for a second refinery are on-site and will be constructed as part of the expansion of mining activities. The crushing system is being refurbished as part of the restart activities and all other facilities are operational. Property, plant and equipment is valued at $65.4 million.
The Hycroft Mine operates under permit authorizations from the BLM, NDEP, NDOW, NDWR and County agencies. As of June 30, 2019, approximately 118 full-time personnel were employed at Hycroft.
|
38 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 3-1: Hycroft Mine Property Location Map (June 2018)
3.1 | Land Status |
The mine is managed and operated by HRDI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Allied VGH, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC.
|
39 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
HRDI holds 3,247 unpatented mining claims, comprising 68,759 acres, located as follows:
· | T36N, R29E, sections: 28, 32, 33 |
· | T36N, R30E, sections: 19, 28-34 |
· | T35 1/2N, R29E, sections: 25, 26, 35, 36 |
· | T35N, R29E, sections: 1-3, 10-15, 21-28, 31-36 |
· | T35N, R30E, sections: 2-10, 15-23, 25-36 |
· | T34N, R28E, sections: 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 |
· | T34N, R29E, sections: 1-28, 33 |
· | T34N, R30E, sections: 2-11, 17-20, 29, 30 |
The company owns 30 private parcels (patented lode and placer claims) comprising 1,912 acres, located as follows:
· | T35N, R29E, sections: 24, 25, 35, 36 |
· | T35N, R30E, sections: 19, 30, 31 |
· | T34N, R29E, sections: 1, 2 |
Combining the patented and unpatented claims, Hycroft claims total approximately 70,671 acres (Figure 3-2). Much of the project area is located on un-surveyed public and private land for which the sections, ranges, and townships listed above have been interpolated. Patented claims however, have been surveyed (Wilson, 2008; Prenn, 2006).
This land claim package has been assembled through a series of transactions:
· | The Crofoot property and approximately 3,500 acres of claims were acquired by Vista in 1985. |
· | The Crofoot property, originally held under lease, is owned by HRDI subject to a 4% Net Profits Interest (“NPI”) retained by the former owners, capped at total future payments of $5.1 million. |
· | The Lewis property and approximately 8,700 acres of claims were acquired by Vista in early 1987. |
· | In 2006, approximately 13,100 acres of additional claims were staked by Vista. These claims are contiguous or proximate to the original Crofoot and Lewis claims. |
· | From 2008 through end of October 2014, approximately 45,371 acres of additional claims were staked by HRDI contiguous to the existing Hycroft claims. |
The BLM and County annual claim holding fees are paid in the third quarter of each year. Payment of annual fees is current through the 2018-2019 claim years, with $556,610 paid in 2018. Payment of annual land holding fees and taxes is required to continue to hold the Hycroft property in good standing.
HRDI controls all surface and mineral rights within the Hycroft mineral reserve and mineral resource area. No further land acquisition is required for operation of the mine and processing facilities as presently designed.
Figure 3-3 shows the property layout including site facilities, mine workings, leach pads and waste dumps.
|
40 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 3-2: Hycroft Mine Claim Map (June 2019)
|
41 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 3-3: Current Property and Facilities Layout (June 2019)
|
42 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
3.2 | Agreements and Royalties |
The Crofoot property is held by HRDI, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC, through Allied VGH, Inc. A 4% NPI is retained by the original Crofoot owners. In 1996, the lease/purchase agreement was amended to provide for minimum advance royalty payments of $120,000 on January 1 of each year in which mining occurs on patented and unpatented claims. The sum of payments for the Crofoot property is capped at $7.6 million, of which $2.49 million has been paid through June 2019. An additional $120,000 annually is due if ore production exceeds 5 million tons from the Crofoot property on either patented or unpatented claims in any calendar year. All advanced royalty payments are taken as a credit against the 4% NPI. Table 3-1 shows the royalty amount and other annual land holding costs.
Table 3-1: Hycroft Annual Land Holding Costs
Month Due | Lessor | Type | Amount |
January-December | Crofoot1 | Advance Royalty | $120,000 |
August-October | U.S. BLM, Humboldt & Pershing Counties | Claim Fees | $556,610 |
1 The Crofoot royalty is only payable if mining is taking place.
3.3 | Environmental Liabilities |
Gold production began on the property in 1983 and continued through 1985 when Standard Slag opened the Lewis Mine. There was a brief gap in mining until HRDI acquired the Lewis Mine and the Crofoot claims and recommenced mining in 1988. Mining operations continued until 1998 when mining was placed on standby due to low metal prices. Process operations continued until 2004 when the property was placed on care and maintenance.
Efforts began in 2003 to update the reclamation plan, associated cost estimate, and related amount of surety bond posted with the BLM. During the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, the Company increased collateral account balances to support additional surety bonds for the benefit of the BLM. These additional surety bonds allowed the Company to continue operations at the Hycroft Mine and to expand exploration activities outside of the Hycroft Mine. In 2011, the Company received a reimbursement of $0.5 million related to reclamation costs paid by the Company.
In January 2014, the BLM approved an updated reclamation cost estimate allowing for the phased bonding of the expansion activities. The required bond amount was lowered from $63 million to $58.3 million. The Company has entered into Surface Management Surety Bonds with insurance companies that meet the financial requirements of the BLM to comply with the total requirement of $58.3 million as detailed in the September 2013 reclamation cost estimate that requested the phasing of the mill expansion activities. Additionally, the company has posted an exploration bond with the BLM in the amount of $1.0 million and an Archaeological Resources Protection Act Surety Bond in the amount of $0.6 million.
3.4 | Permits |
The Hycroft Mine operates under permit authorizations from the BLM, NDEP, NDOW, and NDWR. All operating and environmental permits, approved by the BLM, NDEP, NDOW and NDWR, are in good standing for mining operations at Hycroft. Table 3-2 summarizes the operating permits while Table 3-3 shows the miscellaneous permits for the property.
|
43 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 3-2: Hycroft Operating Permits
Operating Permits | Issuing Agency | Number | Status |
Plan of Operations | BLM | NVN-064641 | Current |
Mercury Operating Permit to Construct | NDEP - BAPC | AP1041-2255 | Current |
Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct | NDEP - BAPC | AP1041-2974 | Current |
Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct | NDEP - BAPC | AP1041-3344 | Current |
Class I Air Quality Operating Permit to Construct | NDEP - BAPC | AP1041-3269 | Current |
Permit to Operate a Public Water System | NDEP - BSDW | HU-0864-12NTNC | Current |
Class II Air Quality Permit | NDEP - BAPC | AP1041-0334.02 | Current |
Water Pollution Control Permit-Crofoot Project | NDEP - BMRR | NEV60013 | Current |
Water Pollution Control Permit-Brimstone Project | NDEP - BMRR | NEV94114 | Current |
Bioremediation Facility Permit | NDEP - BMRR | GNV041995-HGP15 | Current |
Reclamation Permit | NDEP - BMRR | 134 | Current |
Mining General Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit | NDEP - BWPC | R300000: MSW-177 | Current |
Class III Landfill Waiver | NDEP - BSMM | F-346 | Current |
Artificial Pond Permit (Brimstone Process Ponds) | NDOW | S34481 | Current |
Artificial Pond Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds) | NDOW | S36665 | Current |
Artificial Pond Permit (North Process Ponds) | NDOW | S36661 | Current |
General Onsite Sewage Disposal System | NDEP - BWPC | GNEVOSDS09 | Current |
Septic Onsite Disposal | NDEP - BWPC | GNEVOSD09L-0018 | Current |
Dam Safety Permit (Crofoot Process Ponds) | NDWR | J-273 | Current |
Hazardous Materials Storage Permit | NV State Fire Marshall | 8250 | Current |
Special Use Permit | Pershing County | SUP 12-04 | Current |
Special Use Permit | Humboldt County | UH-12-04 | Current |
Table 3-3: Hycroft Miscellaneous Permits
Operating Permits | Issuing Agency | Number | Status |
ROW Microwave Repeater; Sec. 29, 30 | BLM | NVN46292 | Current |
ROW Wells/Pipeline/Power Line; Sec. 3 | BLM | NVN46564 | Current |
ROW 2 Wells/Pipeline/Power Line | BLM | NVN46959 | In renewal |
ROW Road & Waterline (Old Man camp to Lewis) | BLM | NVN39119 | In renewal |
ROW Crofoot pipeline | BLM | NVN44999 | In renewal |
ROW 24 kv Aerial Powerline, Lewis/Floka | BLM | NVN54893 | Current |
Kamma Peak Station | FCC | WNER344 | Current |
Sulfur Mine Station | FCC | WNER345 | Current |
Winnemucca Mountain Station | FCC | WNER346 | Current |
Base Station & 45 Mobile Units | FCC | WNKK336 | Current |
Operating and miscellaneous permits that require annual maintenance fees are shown in Table 3-4. Fixed annual fees are required for storm water and public drinking water system permits based upon the current Nevada regulatory structure. The other annual fees are based on annual mining production, quantities and types of chemicals stored on site, existing and permitted surface disturbance, and the level of actual and permitted air emissions. The variable fees shown are based upon the current operational conditions.
|
44 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 3-4: Hycroft Permits and Annual Fees
Permit and Fee Description | Annual Amount |
Air Quality Operating Permit AP1041-0334.02 | $3,312 |
Air Quality Operating Permit AP1041-2255 | $14,401 |
Air Quality Operating Permit AP1041-2974 | $22,082 |
Air Quality Operating Permit AP1041-3344 | $14 |
Reclamation Permit | $30,000 |
Nevada Radioactive Material License | $1,100 |
Stormwater Permit | $200 |
Artificial Pond Permit | $8,750 |
Water Pollution Control Permit NEV94114 | $20,000 |
Water Pollution Control Permit NEV60013 | $20,000 |
State Fire Marshall | $150 |
Public Drinking Water System | $225 |
Septic System Permits | $600 |
Toxic Release Inventory Annual Fee | $3,000 |
Nevada LP-Gas License | $450 |
TOTAL | $124,284 |
Hycroft currently holds six ROW leases and two exploration notices with the BLM, as described in Table 3-5 along with fees and renewals.
Table 3-5: Right-of-Way Payment and Renewal Schedule
ROW Number |
Annual Payment Amount
(estimated) |
Payment Date | Expiration Date |
NVN46292 | $125 | 01/01/19 | 12/31/48 |
NVN46564 | $100 | 01/01/19 | 12/31/46 |
NVN46959 | $600 | 01/01/19 | In renewal |
NVN39119 | $400 | 01/01/19 | In renewal |
NVN44999 | $300 | 01/01/19 | In renewal |
NVN54893 | $200 | 01/01/19 | 10/10/2025 |
NVN96607 (notice) | N/A | N/A | 05/15/2021 |
NVN96608 (notice) | N/A | N/A | 05/15/2021 |
3.4.1 | Hycroft Expansion Permitting |
HMC submitted an amended Plan of Operations for an expansion of its heap leach facilities, open pits and waste rock facilities to the BLM in April 2010. The submittal of the Plan of Operations to the BLM initiated a National Environmental Policy Act review of the proposed action. The BLM determined that an EIS was to be performed and, in August 2012, a Record of Decision was issued authorizing the proposed action. A major modification to the State Water Pollution Control Permit was submitted in 2011 for the process components that included engineering design reports from Golder Associates. The permit modification was issued in August 2012. All other permits required for the heap leach expansion have been received.
The permit required to construct mill facilities was received in December 2012. The air quality permit for operation of a mill was submitted in December 2012 and issuance was received in late 2013.
|
45 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
An amended Plan of Operations that included a rail spur, open pit expansion and processing complex was submitted to the BLM in August 2012. The BLM determined that an Environmental Assessment was required, deemed the Plan of Operations complete and initiated public scoping in December 2012. NV Energy submitted a Rights-of-Way application for the power line associated with the Hycroft Mill in March 2013. The BLM determined that action should be analyzed with the Hycroft EA. A record of decision approving the EA was completed by the BLM in January 2015.
A Plan of Operations for the TMF, mining below the water table and expanded facilities was submitted to the BLM in April 2014. The BLM determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is required. The SEIS permitting process is in progress and it is anticipated that it will be completed in 2019.
A Plan of Operations amendment for construction of a new leach pad was submitted to, and approved by, the BLM in July 2019. A Water Pollution Control Permit modification was submitted to NDEP in March 2019 for the leach pad expansion and is under review. It is expected a decision for the water pollution control permit will be received by the end of 2019. Future expansion activities described in this Technical Report Summary will require multiple federal, state and local permits.
3.4.2 | Crofoot Heap Leach Facility Closure |
HMC submitted an updated Final Permanent Closure Plan in November 2017, to the NDEP for the Crofoot processing facilities permitted in Water Pollution Control Permit NEV60013. Facilities to be closed include the Crofoot heap leach pad and associated processing components. The NDEP has approved the activities associated with the closure of the process plant and ponds.
The construction of the drain-down collection system was completed in 2012. Regrading of the Crofoot pad was initiated in 2017 and, once completed, growth medium will be placed on the heap leach pad.
|
46 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
4 | Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography |
4.1 | Access |
Hycroft and its related facilities are located 54 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. Access to the Hycroft Mine from Winnemucca or Gerlach is by means of State Road No. 49 (Jungo Road), a good quality, unpaved road. Access is also possible from Imlay or Lovelock by dirt roads intersecting Interstate 80. The majority of the mine’s employees live in the Winnemucca area. Winnemucca is a commercial community on Interstate 80, 164 miles northeast of Reno, Nevada. The town is served by a transcontinental railroad and has a small public airport. There is access to adequate supplies of water and power.
4.2 | Climate |
The climate of the region is arid, with precipitation averaging 7.7 inches per year. Most of the precipitation occurs in the winter and spring months.
Temperatures during the summer are generally 50ºF at night and 90ºF and above during the days. Winter temperatures average 20ºF at night and 40ºF during the day. There is strong surface heating during the day and rapid nighttime cooling due to the dry air, resulting in wide daily ranges in temperatures. The average range between the highest and lowest daily temperatures is 30 to 35ºF.
Winds are generally light with dust or sandstorms occurring occasionally, particularly during the spring. The mine has not experienced major delays in production due to inclement weather and operates on a year-round basis.
4.3 | Local Resources and Infrastructure |
The mine site has a truck shop, ore processing facilities, an administration building and other service-related structures. Power is supplied to the site from nearby power lines that are fed directly from the main power grid and there is a modern communications system including cellular connections.
The mine is in a well-known mining jurisdiction near several towns including Winnemucca, Gerlach and Lovelock. Most of the current personnel at Hycroft are from these areas. Initial surveys indicated that the town of Winnemucca has the required infrastructure (shopping, emergency services, schools, etc.) to support the maximum workforce and dependents. In addition, the mine has been successful in filling positions with qualified mining personnel from all over the country.
Water rights are shown in Table 4-1. Three production wells are located four to five miles west of the mine, and a potable well is located approximately one mile south of the Crofoot Heap. These four production wells are the main sources of water for the mine site. All of the water rights are within the Black Rock Desert Hydrographic Basin, a recently designated basin.
HMC controls a land position sufficient to support all of its planned facilities. A major east-west railway passes through the Hycroft claim position.
|
47 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 4-1: Hycroft Water Wells and Permitted Yearly Consumption
Application No. |
Permit Diversion Limit
(cfs) |
Annual Appropriation Limit
(ac-ft) |
Point of Diversion |
81228 | 0.4 | 14.83 | T34N R29E S3 |
81226 | 3.2 | 724.79 | T35N R29E S31 |
81225 | 3.2 | 303.43 | T35N R29E S31 |
81227 | 2.0 | 1,448 | T35N R29E S31 |
81224 | 2.0 | 1,448 | T34N R28E S1 |
81408 | 5.4 | 3,890 | T35N R29E S31 |
81409 | 5.4 | 3,890 | T35N R29E S31 |
84477 | 0.3 | 177.9 | T35N R29E S31 |
82274 | 10 | 4,096 | T35N R29E S31 |
82355 | 3.3 | 2,050 | T35N R29E S31 |
82356 | 5.6 | 3,415 | T34N R28E S1 |
Total | 40.8 | 21,457.95 |
4.4 | Physiography |
The mine is situated on the eastern edge of the Black Rock Desert and on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains between Winnemucca and Gerlach, Nevada.
The Black Rock Desert is a 400 square mile flat, prehistoric lakebed, completely devoid of any vegetation or animal habitat. Its name comes from a large, prominent, dark rock formation located at the north end of the desert. During the summer, the lakebed is primarily a hardpan alkaline playa. During some winters, it may become a temporary lake.
There are no streams, rivers, or major lakes in the general area. Elevations range from 4,500 to 5,500 ft above sea level.
|
48 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
5 | History |
5.1 | Property History |
Mining at Hycroft began in 1983 with a small heap leach operation known as the Lewis Mine. Lewis Mine production was followed by production from the Crofoot property in the Bay, South Central, Boneyard, Gap and Cut-4 pits along the Central Zone. Production from the north end of the Brimstone pit continued until December 1998. Due to gold prices averaging below $300/oz, the mine was placed on a care and maintenance program though processing continued through 2004 when mining ceased in December 1998.
Vista acquired the Lewis Mine in early 1987 from F. W. Lewis, Inc., and the Crofoot Mine in April 1988. The remaining leasehold interest in the Lewis property was purchased by Vista in December 2005, in consideration of the payment of $5.1 million resulting in the elimination of the 5% NSR royalty on gold and 7.5% NSR royalty on silver.
The Hycroft Mine produced approximately 1.2 million ounces of gold and 2.5 million ounces of silver from 1983 to 1998 when the operations were suspended. An additional 58,700 ounces of gold was produced from the leaching and rinsing of the heap leach pads from 1999 through 2004, after the mine was placed on care and maintenance.
In May 2007, the Nevada-based holdings of Vista were spun out into Allied Nevada Gold Corp. The Hycroft Mine was included as part of the transfer of ownership allowing Allied Nevada to explore, expand, and develop the resources at Hycroft.
In September 2007, Allied Nevada’s Board of Directors approved the reactivation of the Hycroft Mine, and in December 2008, produced its first doré from the Hycroft mine, which was shipped to an offsite refinery for final processing, yielding gold and silver bullion. Permitting was received and construction of a new refinery was completed at the Brimstone plant site by June of 2009. The mine achieved planned ore production capacity by the end of 2009.
With the construction of the North leach pad in 2013, the total leach pad space for the Brimstone, Lewis and North leach pads was increased to more than 20 million square feet. In 2010, the mine began an expansion program that included construction of a 21,000 gallon per minute Merrill-Crowe processing plant and a three-stage crushing facility as well solution pumping capacity upgrades. All of these projects have been completed. Active mining was stopped at Hycroft in June 2015 due to low metal prices and active leaching of previously mined ore continued through 2018.
On October 22, 2015, Allied Nevada emerged from its financial restructuring and changed its name to Hycroft Mining Corporation.
In late 2018, Hycroft began construction of new leach pads to demonstrate its recently developed heap oxidation and leach process in a commercial setting. Additionally, Hycroft began preparing the mine, including its facilities and mining equipment for a restart. Active mining began in March 2019, with a focus on transition and sulfide material. Ore has been placed on the new leach pads and is in the active oxidation phase. Production of gold and silver is expected in the third quarter of 2019.
Sales since the Hycroft mine was reactivated by HMC through July 2019 has totaled approximately 900,000 ounces of gold and 5.0 million ounces of silver.
5.2 | Mining History |
The earliest recorded mining in the Sulfur District, where the Hycroft Mine is located, began in the late 1800’s following the discovery of significant native sulfur deposits (Couch and Carpenter, 1943; Wilden, 1964). Mining of native sulfur was sporadic from 1900 to 1950 with over 181,488 tons of sulfur ore, grading approximately 20-35% sulfur, mined and milled (McLean, 1991).
|
49 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
In addition to sulfur, high-grade silver mineralization, consisting of nearly pure seams of cerargyrite (AgCl), was discovered in 1908 at Camel Hill (Vandenburg, 1938). Assays up to 3,439 opt silver and 0.362 opt gold were reported (Jones, 1921). Silver mining ceased in 1912 with an estimated 165,375 silver ounces produced. Minor silver mining also occurred along the East Fault at the Snyder Adit, and silver samples as high as 66 opt (Friberg, 1980) and 29 opt (Bates, 2001) were reported.
During the First World War, three 6 to 8 foot-wide veins of nearly pure alunite were mined in the southern part of the Sulfur District (Clark, 1918). In 1931, several hundred tons of alunite were mined as a soil additive (Fulton and Smith, 1932). Vandenburg estimated that 454 tons of alunite was shipped to the west coast to be used as fertilizer (Vandenburg, 1938). From 1941 to 1943, cinnabar was mined from small pits in the exposed acid leach zone (Bailey, 1944). Total mercury production during this period is estimated at 1,900 lbs. (McLean, 1991).
5.3 | Exploration History |
In 1966, the Great American Minerals Company began extensive exploration for native sulfur in the area of the Hycroft Mine. Approximately 200 shallow holes were drilled, and numerous trenches dug (Friberg, 1980). In 1974, the Duval Corporation (Duval) drilled 20 holes on the Hycroft property in search of a Frasch-type sulfur deposit (Wallace, 1980). Duval found no evidence of a sulfur deposit at depth, but did report elevated gold and silver values. Duval drilled two core holes (DC-1 and DC-2) and 18 rotary holes (DR-3 through 20) (Ware, 1989).
In 1977, the Cordex Syndicate mapped and rock chip sampled the Hycroft property, recognizing the potential for a bulk tonnage, low-grade precious metal deposit. In 1978, Homestake became interested in the property, recognizing similarities with the McLaughlin hot springs deposit in California. Homestake completed surface sampling and exploration drilling during 1981-1982, and although successful in defining an oxide gold/silver ore body, they dropped the property in 1982.
Table 5-1 references the historical Hycroft drill database, which includes 3,358 exploration drill holes totaling 1,005,089 ft drilled from 1974 through 2005.
|
50 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 5-1: Historical Drilling
Year | Hole Type | Company |
No. of
Holes |
Footage | Zones Drilled0 |
1974 | DD | Duval | 2 | 3,341 | Central |
1974 | RC | Duval | 18 | 6,385 | Central |
1981-1982 | RC | Homestake | 120 | 23,692 | Bay, Boneyard, Camel, Central |
1982 | Rotary | HRDI | 4 | 650 | Central |
1982 | RC | HRDI | 65 | 18,450 | Bay and Boneyard |
1985 | RC | HRDI | 191 | 32,784 | Bay, Boneyard, Central, Camel |
1986 | RC | HRDI | 489 | 104,175 | Bay, Boneyard, Central, Camel, Brimstone |
1987 | RC | HRDI | 640 | 141,880 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Boneyard, Camel |
1988 | RC | HRDI | 73 | 25,855 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Boneyard, Camel |
1989 | RC | HRDI | 43 | 15,780 | Central |
1990 | DD | HRDI | 8 | 11,247 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1990 | RC | HRDI | 129 | 43,620 | Central, Bay, Camel |
1991 | RC | HRDI | 147 | 44,360 | Brimstone, Bay, Central, Camel |
1992 | RC | HRDI | 265 | 83,015 | Brimstone, Camel |
1993 | DD | HRDI | 6 | 2,320 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1993 | RC | HRDI | 293 | 103,685 | Brimstone |
1994 | DD | HRDI | 3 | 4,992.7 | Brimstone, Central, Boneyard, Camel |
1994 | RC | HRDI | 206 | 81,060 | Brimstone, Central, Boneyard, Camel |
1995 | RC | HRDI | 353 | 157,015 | Brimstone |
1996 | DD | HRDI | 7 | 3,998 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1996 | RC | HRDI | 163 | 75,090 | Brimstone, Boneyard |
1997 | RC | HRDI | 13 | 3,040 | Brimstone |
1998 | Blasthole | HRDI | 67 | 3,670 | Brimstone |
1999 | DD | HRDI | 9 | 4,869.7 | Brimstone |
1999 | RC | HRDI | 11 | 5,545 | Brimstone |
2005 | RC | Vista | 33 | 13,275 | Brimstone |
5.3.1 | Bay |
Bay is a flat lying zone of mineralization hosted by inter-bedded conglomeritic to sandy debris flows (Upper Camel Group) located at the northwest sector of the district. It extends for 5,000 feet in a north-south direction along the Central Fault, between northing 49,000N and 54,500N mine grid. Mineralization extends as far as 2,500 feet to the west of the Central Fault and is 20-250 feet thick. Bay was the focus of exploration drilling between 1985 and 1987, and is the western extension of the Lewis Mine, which was partially mined by Standard Slag between 1983 and 1985. Oxidation forms an 80 to 100-foot-thick blanket over the sulfide mineralization. Bay mineralization remains open to the north.
5.3.2 | Central |
This zone includes Central, Gap, Cut-4, and Cut-5, and occurs along a length of 10,000 feet in the immediate hanging wall of the Central Fault. The South Central zone was mined immediately after Bay, and extends from approximately northing 42,000N to 46,000N. The Gap was mined second and extends from 46,000N to 49,000N. This last historical mining of the Central zone was in Cut-4, which extends from 39,000N to 42,000N. Cut-5 is a southerly extension of the Cut-4 Zone, for which mining was initiated by HMC in June 2011. Mineralization extends from the Central fault, westward for up between 2,500 to 3,700 ft and ranges from 50 to 1,200 ft thick. Central mineralization remains open to the west, south, and at depth.
|
51 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
5.3.3 | Boneyard |
This zone strikes north-northeast and is located approximately 1,000 feet east of Bay. The zone is about 3,000 feet long and extends in a north-northeast direction from 47,800N to 50,800N and was mined concurrently with the Gap. Mineralization is 50 to 300 ft thick at Boneyard; although it remains open to the north it is currently being developed as part of the crushing platform and is not considered for mining due to existing and future infrastructure.
5.3.4 | Brimstone |
Brimstone is located along the east portion of the District. The system extends from at least 40,000N to 45,000N with mineralization present in the hanging wall of the west dipping, normal East Fault. Thickness of mineralization ranges from 200 to 1,100 ft thick. Vista production records show 15,500,000 tons of ore was historically mined from Brimstone, with an average cyanide soluble grade of 0.014 opt Au. Recent exploration of the shallow oxide and deep sulfide potential of the Brimstone has been conducted from 2007 to the present. Mining resumed at Brimstone in 2008. Mineralization remains open to the west.
5.3.5 | Vortex |
The Vortex Zone was discovered in 2008 by HMC as a result of testing a geophysical anomaly. During that year, ten holes were drilled as part of the discovery phase. The Vortex Zone, as presently explored, measures 3,000 ft x 2,500 ft, and 2,500 ft in depth. Vortex has merged with the Brimstone zone to the north and remains open to the west and at depth.
5.4 | Production History |
Information on the production history of the Hycroft Mine comes from HMC’s in-house documents. Production by Standard Slag commenced at the Lewis Mine in 1983 and continued until 1985. Ore from the Lewis Mine was crushed and stacked on the Lewis leach pads in the north-central part of the district. Lewis Mine production was followed by production from the Bay, South Central, Boneyard, Gap and Cut-4 pits, and finally the north end of the Brimstone pit, as outlined below in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Life of Mine Production from Hycroft (1983 – August 2016)
Zone |
Years Mined
(approximate) |
Ore Tons
(millions) |
Gold Grade
AuFA |
Oz Au Produced |
Lewis Mine | 1983-1985 | 3.9 | 0.043 | 75,000 |
Central, Bay, Boneyard | 1987-1995 | 53.0 | 0.016 | 688,968 |
Brimstone, Central | 1996-1998 | 30.6 | 0.013 | 319,443 |
Residual Leaching | 1999-2004 | - | - | 58,740 |
Brimstone, Cut 5, Bay | 2008-Aug 2016 | 171.7 | 0.012 | 940,281 |
Total Production | 1983-Aug 2016 | 259.2 | 0.014 | 2,082,432 |
The Central Zone ore was either crushed to P80 passing 3/4 inch or treated as ROM, depending on the blasthole grade. Central production was stacked on a series of leach pads referred to as pads 1 through 3. Pads 1 and 2 were constructed in 1987, and pad 3 in 1992. Ore was placed on pad 1 from 1988 to 1997, on pad 2 from 1989 to 1997 and on pad 3 from 1993 to 1997. Solutions from these pads were treated in the Crofoot Merrill-Crowe plant located on the northeast side of pad 1.
Detailed records are not available on historic reserve modeling in the Central and Brimstone Zones, but detailed records are available for the pad loading from these deposits. From 1988-1997, a total of 85.64 million tons of ore was placed on all pads, with an average cyanide soluble gold grade of 0.018 opt Au (1.56 million ounces of gold).
|
52 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Production from the Brimstone pit was placed directly on leach pads 4 and 5 as ROM. Pad 5 consists of additional lifts placed on top of pads 1 and 2. Pad 4, constructed immediately south of the old Lewis pad, was completed in 1996. Loading of pads 4 and 5 commenced in October 1996 and July 1997, respectively. A 2,800 gallon per minute Merrill-Crowe leach solution plant (the Brimstone Plant) was completed and put into operation in February 1997. The Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant processing capacity was increased to 4,500 gpm in 2010. The plant treated solutions from pad 4 and is located on the northwest side of the pad. Pad 5 solutions were treated in the older Crofoot plant.
No mining data exists after June 2015, when mining ceased, however production data for ongoing solution processing is current as of June 30, 2019.
|
53 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
6 | Geological Setting and Mineralization |
6.1 | Geological Setting |
The Hycroft deposit is a low sulfidation, epithermal, hot springs system that contains gold and silver mineralization. Radiometric dates of adularia (potassium feldspar) indicate that the main phase of gold and silver mineralization formed four million years ago (Ebert, 1996) when hydrothermal fluids were fed upwards along high angle, normal faults. Low grade gold and silver mineralization was co-deposited with silica and potassium feldspar throughout porous rock types.
A subsequent drop in permeability, due to sealing of the system, led to over pressuring and subsequent repeated hydrothermal brecciation. Additional precious metal mineralization was deposited during this event as breccia zones, veins, and sulfide flooding.
Gold and silver mineralization was followed 0.4 to 2.0 million years ago by an intense event of high sulfidation acid leaching of the mineralized volcanic rocks coincident with a regional water table drop. This allowed steam heated sulfur gases to condense into sulfuric acid and leach the upper portion of the mineralized rocks.
Oxidation of sulfide mineralization occurs to variable depths over the deposit, depending upon proximity to faults, extent of acid leaching, and depth to water table. Sulfide content through the deposit is variable from 0% to 20%.
6.1.1 | Regional Geology |
The Hycroft Mine is located on the western flank of the Kamma Mountains in the Basin and Range physiographic province of northwestern Nevada. The Kamma Mountains were formed during Miocene to Quaternary Epoch from the uplift of Jurassic basement rock and emplacement of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The stratigraphy along the western flank of the range is down-dropped to the west, along a series of north to northeast striking normal faults. These faults served as conduits of hydrothermal fluids that deposited the Hycroft mineralization.
The Hycroft property consists of Tertiary to Recent age, fault-controlled, low-sulfidation gold zones that occur over an area measuring approximately three miles in a north-south direction by two miles in an east-west direction. The zones are hosted in volcanic rock eruptive breccias, flows and conglomerates associated with the Tertiary Kamma Volcanics and sand to conglomeratic debris flows associated with the Tertiary Sulphur Group.
Younger rocks at the mine are Tertiary conglomerate, siltstone and fanglomerate of the Sulphur Group (locally termed “Camel Conglomerate”). These rocks are comprised of sediment eroded from the underlying Kamma Volcanics and Jurassic ALS Formation. The Sulphur Group is divided into three main units, a clast supported coarse conglomerate, a matrix supported conglomerate and an underlying tuffaceous lake sediment. This unit outcrops throughout the mine site with increasing thickness to the west.
The older Kamma Group is exposed throughout the Kamma Mountains east of the Central Fault. It underlies the Camel Conglomerate. The volcanic package is comprised of siliceous to intermediate tuffs, coarse grained volcanic clastics, fanglomerates, eruption breccias and massive to flow banded rhyolites.
The Jurassic ALS Formation underlies the Kamma volcanic package. This formation consists of a thin bedded to laminated siltstone, with calcite cementing. ALS is exposed approximately three miles east of the deposit and is encountered only at depth in drilling at Hycroft. A generalized stratigraphic column for the Hycroft deposit area is presented in Figure 6-1. This stratigraphic column illustrates the formations of volcanic origin that host the deposit with notations for lithologies in each formation. The grouping shown is the same that was used to create the lithology wireframes in the geologic model.
|
54 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-1: Stratigraphic Column for Hycroft Deposit Area
Source: SRK, 2019.
Seven major north-northeast trending, west dipping, normal fault zones appear to broadly control the distribution of gold and silver mineralization as shown in Figure 6-3. From west to east, these fault zones are referred to as the Range, West Splay, Central, Break, Albert, Fire, and East faults. These major structures down-drop stratigraphy and also affect the distribution of alteration and mineralization. A post-mineral basin bounding fault appears to border the Camel Conglomerate and the adjacent Pleistocene Lahontan Lake sediments in the Black Rock Desert. Based on geophysics, this structure is approximately 1 to 2 miles west of the mine site. There are several east-west trending structures that appear to provide post-mineral offset to the deposit. These form a series of horst and grabens within the deposit footprint. Going from north to south, these faults include Cliff, Ramp, Prill, Camel and Hades Faults. Figure 6-2 is a north looking section through the Hycroft Mine showing structures, volcanic rock stratigraphy, and gold/silver mineralization. There are also several other parallel fault zones that may have a significant impact on the localization of mineralization. The depth of oxide and mixed sulfide/oxide gold and silver mineralization varies considerably throughout the area. Alteration at the deposit is dominated by acid leaching, silicification, argilization, and propylitization.
6.1.2 | Local Geology |
The deposit is typically broken into six major zones based on geology, mineralization, and alteration. These include Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay, Boneyard, and Camel. The boundaries are typically major faults, namely Break, East and Ramp.
|
55 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-2: Simplified East-West Cross Sections through the Sulfur District
|
56 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-3: Geological Map of the Greater Hycroft Area
|
57 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
6.1.2.1 | Brimstone |
The stratigraphy at Brimstone includes up to 100 feet of alluvium, underlain by Camel Conglomerate rocks (0 feet to 400 feet), and Kamma volcanic rocks, as shown in Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 respectively. ALS has been drilled at depth and is in fault contact (East Fault) with the overlying Kamma Volcanics. The Brimstone ore deposit is hosted primarily by Kamma volcanic rocks in the hanging wall of the East Fault. The volcanic rocks are principally eruption breccias, tuffs, rhyolites, and volcanic rocks proximal to vents, and overlie deformed and metamorphosed shale, sandstone, and siltstone of the ALS group. Kamma Volcanics are strongly altered in the hanging wall of the East Fault, whereas the same units are weakly altered to the east in the footwall of the fault.
At Brimstone, the East Fault is a north-northeast striking, west dipping, normal fault with repeated episodes of movement, including approximately 150 feet to 200 feet of alluvial offset. Where exposed in the Brimstone Pit, the fault clearly shows steep normal movement, with slickensides that plunge 80º to 85º. At depth the fault shallows to 45° to 60º and may merge with the Central and Break Faults. The fault may have originally served as a conduit to hydrothermal fluids. Only minor mineralization is noted footwall to the fault zone.
North of the Brimstone deposit, the east-west trending Ramp and Prill faults appear to down drop favorable stratigraphy. Condemnation drilling of the leach pad to the north has shown only local zones of weak gold and silver mineralization. To the south, the Brimstone Zone transitions to the Vortex Zone, with no apparent change in stratigraphy, but changes to alteration zonation.
Host rocks were highly altered by at least four phases of alteration. The relatively porous conglomerate and breccias were preferentially acid leached by late stage steaming hydrothermal acid vapors. Acid leach alteration extends to depths of 700 feet in some areas of the Brimstone deposit as seen in Figure 6-4, indicating that the water table was present below the base of the acid leached zone. A siliceous layer (basal acid leach), up to tens of feet thick, occurs at the base of the acid leached material. Underlying the acid leaching is a layer of hydrothermal clay alteration, followed by silica potassium feldspar alteration. Pervasive silicification, veining and hydrothermal brecciation are generally found in the rhyolites and breccias.
Zones of silicification of limited thickness, oriented parallel to the East Fault, are present in the footwall zone. Alteration extends for 50 feet to 70 feet footwall to the fault, with pervasive silicification and quartz veining dominant.
|
58 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-4: Brimstone North Pit Wall Geology
Figure 6-5: Brimstone Generalized Geology Cross Section
Gold and silver are spatially associated with fracture and breccia-controlled chalcedony sulfide mineralization. A subsequent acid alteration event produced the current distribution of oxidized and transition sulfide/oxide ore. The lower acid leach material hosts gold and silver mineralization, as does the underlying silicified and veined volcanics.
|
59 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Drilling has shown that mineralization extends to a depth of over 1,200 ft in the Brimstone Zone. Mineralization thickness (true width) is 200-1,100 ft thick and remains open to the west towards the Break Fault and transitions into Vortex to the south.
6.1.2.2 | Vortex |
The stratigraphy in the Vortex Zone is correlative with those at the Brimstone Zone immediately to the north. Camel Conglomerate is underlain by tuffs, volcanic clastics, fanglomerates, and rhyolites of the Kamma Volcanics. The ALS is present, footwall to the East Fault, and appears to be in stratigraphic contact with the Kamma Volcanics, as seen in Figure 6-6.
The upper elevation at Vortex is hydrothermally clay (kaolinite) altered. Acid leaching is less prominent than in Brimstone and is focused primarily along the East Fault. Strong silicification to depths greater than 1,500 feet is due to veining and phreatic hydrothermal brecciation. At least four mineralizing events are present as evidenced by crosscutting vein and breccia relationships. The hydrothermal venting may have contributed to the eruption breccias overlying the Brimstone Zone. Propylitic and/or clay alteration extends outboard of the silicification.
The mineralization at Vortex is of both vein and disseminated type, with brecciated and altered rhyolite rocks and volcanic clastics acting as favorable hosts. In addition to gold mineralization, high grade silver has been encountered at Vortex; with values ranging from 10 to 647 opt. The predominant silver minerals are pyrargyrite, naumanite and miargyrite, occurring both in veins, disseminated and coarse grains along fractures.
Oxide mineralization is present at a depth of approximately 500 feet below surface, with sulfide mineralization extending to 2,500 feet below surface. Mineralization thickness (true width) is 1,000 to 1,800 ft thick. Banded quartz veins with both high-grade silver and gold have been noted in core. Drilling to date indicates that the high-grade zones are both high angle banded quartz veins and a more extensive flat lying, massive quartz zone containing visible pyrargyrite and miargyrite.
Figure 6-6: Vortex to Camel Generalized Section
|
60 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
6.1.2.3 | Bay and Boneyard |
Mineralization in the Bay and Boneyard zones is hosted by gentle, west dipping Camel Conglomerate. Both clast-supported and matrix-supported conglomerate rocks host mineralization. The basal rock type is tuffaceous lake sediments, composed of fine grained clay with minor layers of gravel and conglomerate extending to a depth greater than 1,100 feet as shown in Figure 6-7. Mineralization is primarily bedding controlled, with the Range and Central Faults as the main feeders. The Break Fault may also have zoning controls but is poorly drilled in this zone. Mineralized siliceous hot spring sinters have been historically mined indicating that this deposit represents the upper-most levels of a hot spring hydrothermal system.
The predominant alteration type at Bay is silicification. Acid leach alteration in the area is relatively minor and occurs along high angle structures (Figure 6-8). Clay alteration of the underlying lacustrine sediments is also noted in limited drill holes and is illite smectite dominated. Strong oxidation is present in the upper portion of the silicified zone.
Gold and silver mineralization is associated with flat lying Camel Conglomerate, above the lacustrine sediments of the Tsg formation. Mineralization thickness (true width) is 20 to 250 ft thick at Bay and 50-300 ft thick at Boneyard. This zone transitions into the upper zone of mineralization at Central. Bay and Boneyard remain open to the north and east.
Figure 6-7: Bay Geologic Cross Section
|
61 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-8: Bay Looking North
6.1.2.4 | Central |
The Central Zone geology is similar in nature to that of Bay, with mineralization and alteration fed by high angle faults and fractures, with dominant lateral fluid flow through the porous conglomerate rocks of the Sulphur Group as seen in Figure 6-9. Camel Conglomerate units are underlain by lacustrine sediments. However, the lacustrine units thin dramatically to the south, with less than 50 feet of the material noted south of Cut-4.
The Central Zone is bounded to the east by the Central and Break Faults. Fault movement is unknown, but extends at least 2,000 feet, with recent reactivation in the quaternary (50 feet to 150 feet), as demonstrated by offset in the alluvium. The Range Fault to the west may provide an additional boundary, although drill data is limited at this time.
Alteration along the Central Zone is similar to that of Bay. Acid leach alteration is stronger and more widespread than at Bay and is extensive in the southern portion of the pit. The acid leaching overlies silicified conglomerate rocks, except along the immediate trace of the Central Fault where silicification dominates as the alteration type. Oxidation extends downward approximately 400 feet. Underlying the silicification and acid leaching are illite and smectite clay-altered and clay dominant lacustrine sediments. Hot spring sinter deposits have not been observed.
Gold and silver mineralization is associated with favorable stratigraphic horizons in the Camel conglomerate, with an upper and lower zone noted in drilling, separated by a north-south striking, east dipping clay layer. Mineralization remains open to the west, past the Range Fault, and at depth (>1,400 feet). Mineralization thickness (true width) in the upper zone is 50-300 ft thick, while the lower zone ranges from 300-1,200 ft thick, and remains open at depth. The zone mineralization is contiguous to the Vortex and Brimstone Zones to the east, and the Camel/Cut-5 zones to the south.
|
62 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-9: Central Pit Geologic Cross Section
6.1.2.5 Camel and Cut-5 Zones
Camel Conglomerate is the dominant lithology at Camel. The conglomerates appear to extend to depth in this zone, with only thin lake sediments drilled to date. The lack of lake sediments can be attributed to either the Camel Fault or facies changes along a shoreline. The Camel Fault is an east-west trending fault, with down-drop to the south, which is presently poorly defined by drilling.
Alteration south of the Central Pit and in the Camel Zone is predominantly comprised of silicification and clay alteration. Hydrothermal clays, overlying silicified conglomerate rocks, and basal illite-smectite clay altered rocks are present. Acid leaching in the area is relatively minor, especially with respect to the intensity and amount in the Central and Cut-4 Zones area immediately to the northeast.
Mineralization in the Camel/Cut-5 Zones is hosted by conglomerate rocks and occurs as both disseminated gold and silver associated with pyrite and marcasite, and higher-grade veins, including silver bearing pyrargyrite veins. Mineralization thickness (true width) is 200-1,100 ft thick, extends to depths greater than 1,400 feet, and remains open at depth. Oxidation extends to depths greater than 200 feet and an area of intense oxidized mordenite alteration is present between the Cut-5 and Camel Zones. Mineralization remains open to the south, west and at depth. To the north, Camel mineralization is contiguous with the lower zone of the Central Zone, while Cut-5 is contiguous with the upper zone. Mineralization is also open to the west of Camel and to the south towards Hades Fault.
6.2 Alteration and Mineralization
6.2.1 | Alteration |
The main alteration events in the Hycroft District occurred in the following sequence:
|
63 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | Barren propylitic alteration of the Kamma volcanic rocks. |
· | Barren illite smectite clay alteration of the Camel Conglomerate and sedimentary rocks on the western portion of the Hycroft deposit and related alteration of large areas of the Kamma volcanic rocks (illite + quartz + pyrite). |
· | Hydrothermal activity produced a layer of kaolinite montmorillonite clay at the top of the opal chalcedony flooding and above hydrothermal breccias. |
· | Widespread opal chalcedony, k-spar, pyrite and marcasite (termed “silica sulfide”) flooding of the sedimentary Camel Conglomerate, hydrothermal breccia ejecta, and related fragmental rocks was synchronous with the illite smectite event. Blanket acid sulfate (acid leach) alteration formed a vertically zoned layer of upper residual quartz and a lower layer of intense opalization, termed basal acid leach. |
· | Hypogene alteration oxidized silica and clay rich rocks at the base of acid leach alteration. |
· | Mordenite alteration (zeolite and clays) overprints the opal k-spar alteration, especially in the Gap and Bay areas, and reaching depths of 160 feet in places. |
Most recently, supergene oxidation of acid leach, oxide and sulfide mineralization occurred along major faults, accompanied by small amounts of normal movement, displacing mineralization in the hanging wall downward.
Each alteration and type are described below in detail.
6.2.1.1 Propylitic
Propylitic alteration has only been noted in volcanic rocks of the Kamma Mountains, both in drill samples and from surface mapping in the mountains. Propylitic alteration is pervasive in the Kamma Mountains and affects the rocks in the Hycroft deposit both pervasive and as veining, especially in rhyolite flows and intrusive rocks at Vortex and southern Brimstone. Typically, the propylitic alteration gives the rocks a bright green color and minerals consist of chlorite, quartz k-spar, calcite and pyrite.
6.2.1.2 Illite Smectite Clay Alteration
Illite smectite clay alteration underlies the near surface silicification in the western portion of the district in the sedimentary rocks of the Camel Conglomerate and basal clay rocks. Rocks have been pervasively altered to a mixed layer of Illite smectite plus/minus quartz, calcite, pyrite, kaolinite and pyrrhotite assemblage. The alteration gives the rocks a gray to greenish gray color and extends to depths greater than 1,000 ft. The composition of the Illite smectite varies with both distance from faults and with depth, with increasing Illite content indicating higher temperature with depth and proximity to silicified conduits.
The contact between this alteration type and the opal k-spar alteration is transitional and suggests that the timing of the two events is roughly synchronous.
6.2.1.3 Opal K-spar Alteration
A widespread event of low-grade silica pyrite potassium feldspar alteration created a blanket of silica sulfide alteration, resulting in rocks having a glassy appearance. Fine grained, euhedral to subhedral pyrite is always associated with this alteration. Pyrite forms 2% to 5% of the rock as fairly uniform, bright yellow to brassy grains, about 0.008 in. to 0.02 in. in size, and occurring evenly distributed throughout the rock mass. Up to 50% of the rock mass is composed of microscopic potassium feldspar. The alteration gives the rocks a gray color and extends to depths greater than 2,500 feet.
|
64 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
6.2.1.4 Quartz Chalcedony Veining and Silica Flooding
Quartz chalcedony veins cut acid leach alteration in the Brimstone and Vortex zones. These veins and associated silica flooding of wall rock may be related to hydrothermal brecciation and phreatic eruption events. These veins and breccias may be from inches to feet thick, which show several stages of formation by their crosscutting nature and often are associated with sulfide selvages and fine-grained sulfide flooding (locally termed ‘sooty sulfides’), giving the rock a dark gray to black color. Veins are commonly banded and can contain brecciated fragments of other veins. The presence of calcite as euhedral rhombs and replacement by quartz is common.
6.2.1.5 Hypogene Oxidation
This original hypogene alteration is composed of two dominant types, silicic oxide and clay oxide. Iron oxide minerals occur on fractures and in original sulfide sites. Silicic oxidation comprises about 85% of all oxide samples (Figure 6-10). Silicic oxidation underlies acid leach alteration and reaches thicknesses of up to 200 feet. In the majority of oxide mineralization, all sulfides have been converted to iron oxides. Silicic oxide is fine grained and glassy appearing, with little or no secondary porosity development. Iron oxides, sulfates and hydroxides are common accessory minerals, with hematite being the most prevalent oxide.
Oxidation of the silicic alteration can have a variety of dominant colors including white, yellow, red, and purple, depending on the relative amounts of iron oxides, hydroxides, and sulfates. Silicic oxide is composed of 65% to 85% silica, 5% to 20% clay, and 5% to 15% hematite and jarosite.
Oxidation of clay altered rock comprises about 15% of material classed as oxide and is thought to be the result of hydrothermal alteration of in-situ rock, representing formation under weak acid oxidizing conditions. Clay zones appear white to yellow to pinkish and are composed of 50% or more clay, with the usual accessory iron oxides. Clays are mixtures of montmorillonite and kaolinite with accessory alunite and occur as discontinuous layers 30 feet to 50 feet thick directly beneath basal acid leach alteration, as irregular veins, or amoeboid shaped areas scattered throughout the silica oxide alteration. At the Vortex Zone, clay oxidation may extend to depths greater than 200 feet.
|
65 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-10: Hypogene Oxidation by Acid - Steam Heated Solution
6.2.1.6 Supergene Oxidation
Supergene oxidation extends to depth along faults, manifested as a zone of oxide stained fault gouge. Figure 6-11 shows a schematic section of the distribution of this alteration, which appear to be the final alteration event.
The zone appears very similar to oxidized/silicic and small fragments of acid leach alteration are caught up in this material. Bright red hematite most often coats all fragments in this zone. In deeper levels of the north Brimstone pit, black manganiferous oxides also occur. Supergene oxidation forms a band 20 feet to 80 feet wide in faulted contacts.
|
66 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-11: Supergene Oxidation + Normal Fault Movement
6.2.2 | Mineralization |
Several styles of mineralization exist at the Hycroft deposit. An early silica sulfide flooding event deposited relatively low-grade gold and silver mineralization, generally along bedding. This is crosscut by later, steeply dipping quartz alunite veins. Hypogene enrichment of gold and silver occurred at the base of the acid leach blanket. Late stage silver bearing veins are found in the Vortex zone and at depth in the Cut-5 area. Late to present supergene oxidation along faults has liberated precious metals from sulfides and enriched gold and silver, generally along water table levels. True thickness and continuity of mineralization is discussed by geologic area in Section 6.2.1.
6.2.2.1 Siliceous Sinters
Large, near-surface, silica sulfide mineralization hosts low-grade gold and silver mineralization throughout the Hycroft deposit. Bay has a blanket of this mineralization that was overprinted with mordenite alteration and the accompanying oxidation resulted in a near surface exposure of gold and silver. Gold and silver occur as very small sized grains associated with sulfides, and in the matrix of the rocks.
6.2.2.2 Quartz Alunite Veins
Steeply dipping quartz veins host gold and silver. The veins have been deposited in fractures below the basal acid leach and in fractures and voids in the main acid leach blanket. Banded veins are found in Central, Brimstone and Vortex, and are typically higher grade than the surrounding low-grade mineralization. Gold occurs as small sized electrum grains, averaging 30% silver, within and adjacent to opal, alunite and clay minerals. Silver also occurs as cerargyrite and iodargyrite associated with alunite, clays, or jarosite.
|
67 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
6.2.2.3 Quartz Chalcedony Mineralization
Fracture and breccia-controlled chalcedony pyrite marcasite mineralization is associated with primarily gold and possibly silver deposition at Brimstone and the Vortex Zone, occurring as veinlets, stockworks, in situ breccias and rotational (chaotic) breccias. This mineralization type clearly crosscuts the earlier low-grade silica pyrite alteration and acid leached material. The veinlet mineralization occurs as 0.04-inch to 0.8-inch veinlets forming 2% to 10% of the rock mass. The veinlets are composed of gray to milk white chalcedony with 5% to 10% sulfides. In situ breccias show flooding of the rock fractures with the chalcedony sulfide assemblage filling a network of fractures occupying 5% to 15% of the rock mass.
Fracturing, veining and brecciation related to phreatic explosions led to both mineral deposition and discontinuous blankets of fragmental ejecta. The ejected fragmental rocks are often acid leached, and some are cut by quartz chalcedony veining. This relationship suggests that the phreatic events were long lived and lasted throughout the acid leach event.
Sulfides are dominated by pyrite and marcasite. Pyrite occurs within veinlets as irregular anhedral masses which are sub-parallel to the veinlet edges and from 0.02 inches to 0.2 inches in size. Marcasite occurs as similar sized masses and as single crystals. Marcasite is euhedral to subhedral, with masses forming twin sheaf like groups of crystals. Gold, and possibly silver, mineralization was most likely introduced during this event. Visible gold, 0.002 inches to 0.005 inches in size, has been identified within chalcedonic veins in thin sections and is closely associated with marcasite.
6.2.2.4 Late Stage Quartz Silver Sulfide Mineralization
At Vortex and Central late stage antimony silver sulfides are associated with zones of quartz veins. Pyrargyrite occurs as discrete veins, selvages along quartz veins and as crystals deposited on both small voids and clay filled fractures. The quartz veins are both banded and massive, with the mineralized veins ranging from sub-millimeter to centimeters in size. The massive quartz veins are white quartz, often have a ‘moth-eaten’ appearance due to numerous vugs, and are from meters to tens of meters thick. These veins are interpreted as feeder veins, possibly along structures and cut earlier brecciation and their geometry has yet to be detailed.
This mineralization style appears to favor a horizon intercepted at roughly the same elevation at depths ranging from 900-1,375 ft within the Vortex and Central Zones from several holes spaced approximately 500 ft apart.
6.3 Deposit Types
The Hycroft deposit is a large, epithermal, low-sulfidation hot springs deposit (Figure 6-12). Gold and silver mineralization are noted as both disseminated and vein controlled, with gold values ranging from detection to 8.8 opt, and silver ranging from detection to 647.5 opt.
Exploration drilling targets zones of hydrothermally altered rocks. Angle core holes are commonly drilled to intersect the high-angle feeder structures. See “Section 9 – Exploration” for a discussion of concepts being applied to the exploration program.
|
68 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 6-12: Generalized Hycroft Epithermal Diagram
|
69 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
7 Exploration
In addition to drilling activity, Hycroft Mining has also conducted geophysical surveys, soil and rock chip sampling programs, field mapping, historical data compilation, and regional reconnaissance at Hycroft. These efforts are designed to improve the understanding of the known mineralization, as well as provide data for further exploration of the greater property position.
A soil sampling grid was conducted over the Vortex and Brimstone areas historically (1,797 samples) and was extended approximately 5,200 ft. north and 29,600 ft. south of the mine in 2011-2012 (1,834 samples). The soil sampling program was conducted primarily along the East Fault exposure, which is a primary ore controlling feature at Vortex and Brimstone. Results, using gold, silver, arsenic, and antimony, indicate potential exploration targets to the south of the Vortex area. At present these have been identified as the Wild Rose, Chance, Rabbit, Chalcedony, and Oscar target areas. Gold values range from 0 to 0.027 opt, while silver values range from 0 to 3.7 opt. Soil samples are taken on an evenly spaced grid, and screened for coarse material and wind-blown material, resulting in a fraction between 2 mm and 180 um being prepped for analysis. These samples are considered representative of local soil geochemistry and are used to guide the regional exploration effort.
Rock chip sampling has been conducted both historically in the active mine area, and on a regional basis (2007-present). A database of 2,416 samples has been compiled, covering the greater land position. Using gold, silver, arsenic, and other elements, exploration targets have been developed both north and south of the current mine. These include Wild Rose, Chance, Oscar, Rabbit, Floka, and Cliffs. Gold values range from 0 to 0.372 opt, while silver values range from 0 to 71.8 opt. Rock chip samples have been taken on most outcrops, with a focus on alteration and potential mineralization. These samples are used as a guide to exploration and are point samples only.
The land position has been surveyed with both gravity and induced polarity (“IP”) geophysical techniques by HMC. The current ground-based gravity survey covers approximately 130 square miles, centered on the mine site. Gravity indicates several structural features and density changes that offer potential exploration targets. These targets include Floka, Blowout, and Oscar. Gravity has also defined the basin edge to the west, approximately 4 miles west of the Brimstone Pit.
Ground IP surveys were run over the mine site and Vortex in 2007 and extended outward in 2011 to cover approximately 24 square miles. The survey results focus on chargeability anomalies, that potentially identify sulfide material (> approximately 1.5%) at depth, and resistivity anomalies, that potentially identify silicification at depth. Results have identified additional exploration targets at Floka, Cliffs, Blowout, Wild Rose, and Chance.
Field mapping was historically and is currently carried out in all active mine areas. Mapping focuses on structure, bedding, joints, lithology, and alteration. The near mine data is incorporated into the three-dimensional geology model, while the regional work is focused on defining exploration targets for future drilling. A regional geology map covering the land position was compiled in 2012 (Figure 6-3). Regional exploration data from Homestake, LAC Minerals, USX, HRDI, and others has been compiled from both in-house and public data sources. Approximately 250 drill holes, various soil and rock chip locations and results, and various field maps have been identified at present.
7.1 Drilling
The Hycroft exploration model includes data from 1981 to 2018 and includes 5,501 holes, representing 2,482,722 feet of drilling (Figure 7-1, Table 7-1 and Table 7-2). There have been 5,576 drill holes completed in the Hycroft Project Area; some are water wells or are outside the resource model domain, and were not applied to estimation. The drill hole collar locations are shown in Figure 7-1. Exploration drilling was started in 1974 by Duval Corporation, which was evaluating the property for a Frasch-type sulfur deposit and the copper potential. Although native sulfur appeared to be limited to the acid leach zone, gold and silver mineralization was discovered at depth, with the
|
70 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
deepest hole completed to 2,000 feet. Duval concluded that the property did not have large scale sulfur potential. Twenty drill holes (9,726 feet) were completed on the project.
From 1981 to 1982, Homestake, using their McLaughlin deposit as a model, completed 96 reverse circulation drill holes totaling 16,537 feet, primarily in the Bay and Boneyard areas. Shallow oxide gold mineralization was discovered, but Homestake declined the opportunity. Crofoot and American Slag then proceeded to acquire the property rights and initiated small scale oxide heap leach mining at Central and Bay in 1983. Homestake also completed 8 core holes during this timeframe, but collar location data has not been located.
HRDI gained control of the district in 1985 and drilled 3,212 exploration holes, totaling 965,552 ft, between 1985 and 1999. The bulk of this drilling was shallow and focused on oxide gold mineralization at Central, Bay and Brimstone.
In 2005, Canyon Resources completed 33 drill holes totaling 13,275 feet of RC drilling. These were completed primarily in the Brimstone pit area.
Historic drilling was conducted prior to the New Mining Rules reporting requirements. In the QP’s opinion, no significant issues have been identified with this historic data and therefore the historic drilling and assay results are incorporated into the Hycroft model.
HMC commenced systematic exploration and resource development drilling starting in 2006. Drilling has been focused on oxide reserve delineation, sulfide resource definition, sulfide exploration, condemnation drilling for facilities, silver data and both geotechnical and metallurgical core samples. Between late-2006 and August 31, 2016, HMC has completed 1,970 exploration holes, totaling approximately 1.45 million feet.
A combination of rotary, reverse circulation and core drilling techniques has been utilized to verify the nature and extent of mineralization. The majority of samples have been collected using reverse circulation drilling methods on 5-foot sample intervals. Reverse circulation drilling utilizes 4.5-inch to 5.5-inch tooling. Deeper drilling is conducted with diamond drilling, using PQ, HQ and NQ tooling. This practice continued through 2013. Since 2013, a RC drilling program was completed in 2014, and a metallurgical core program with the six drill holes was completed in 2017. The metallurgical drill holes were not included in the database for mineral resource estimation and are not shown on the drill hole location map. Various protocols applied to drilling by HMC are consistent with industry standards and the resulting data is of good quality for use in the Hycroft model. Shallow drill holes to sample heap material were completed with sonic coring. The 2018 sonic drilling program was limited to 56 vertical holes in sulfide stockpiles and did not include in situ alluvium or bedrock material. While these were not used for interpolation of in situ rock, they were applied to estimate grades in fill material.
|
71 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 7-1: Drill Hole Collar Locations
|
72 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 7-1: Hycroft Exploration Drill Campaigns
Year | Hole Type | Company |
No. of
Holes |
Zones Drilled |
1974 | DD | Duval | 2 | Central |
1974 | RC | Duval | 15 | Central |
1981-82 | RC | Homestake | 120 | Bay, Boneyard, Camel |
1982 | Rotary | HRDI | 4 | Central |
1982 | RC | HRDI | 65 | Bay and Boneyard |
1985 | RC | HRDI | 191 | Bay, Boneyard, Central, Camel |
1986 | RC | HRDI | 489 | Bay, Boneyard, Central, Camel, Brimstone |
1987 | RC | HRDI | 640 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Boneyard, Camel |
1988 | RC | HRDI | 73 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Boneyard, Camel |
1989 | RC | HRDI | 43 | Central |
1990 | DD | HRDI | 8 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1990 | RC | HRDI | 129 | Central, Bay, Camel |
1991 | RC | HRDI | 147 | Brimstone, Bay, Central, Camel |
1992 | RC | HRDI | 265 | Brimstone, Camel |
1993 | DD | HRDI | 6 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1993 | RC | HRDI | 293 | Brimstone |
1994 | DD | HRDI | 3 | Brimstone, Central, Boneyard, Camel |
1994 | RC | HRDI | 206 | Brimstone, Central, Boneyard, Camel |
1995 | RC | HRDI | 353 | Brimstone |
1996 | DD | HRDI | 7 | Brimstone, Central, Bay, Camel |
1996 | RC | HRDI | 163 | Brimstone, Boneyard |
1997 | RC | HRDI | 13 | Brimstone |
1998 | Blasthole | HRDI | 67 | Brimstone |
1999 | DD | HRDI | 9 | Brimstone |
1999 | RC | HRDI | 11 | Brimstone |
2005 | RC | Vista | 33 | Brimstone |
2006 | RC | HMC | 1 | Brimstone |
2007 | RC | HMC | 38 | Brimstone, Bay |
2007 | DD | HMC | 14 | Brimstone, Bay |
2008 | RC | HMC | 279 | Brimstone |
2008 | DD | HMC | 60 | Brimstone, Bay |
2009 | RC | HMC | 79 | Bay, Central, Vortex, Brimstone |
2009 | DD | HMC | 49 | Bay, Vortex, Brimstone |
2010 | RC | HMC | 279 | Bay, Vortex, Brimstone, Central, Crofoot Leach |
2010 | DD | HMC | 93 | Bay, Vortex, Brimstone, Central |
2011 | RC | HMC | 184 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central |
2011 | DD | HMC | 100 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central |
2012 | RC | HMC | 235 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay |
2012 | DD | HMC | 97 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay |
2013 | RC | HMC | 158 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay |
2013 | DD | HMC | 42 | Brimstone, Vortex, Central, Bay |
2013 | Sonic | HMC | 40 | Bay, Gap, Brimstone Leach |
2013 | Rotary | HMC | 159 | Well Field, Bay and Gap Dumps |
2014 | RC | HMC | 258 | Bay, Brimstone, Central |
2018 | Sonic | HMC | 56 | Sulfide stockpiles in Bay, Brimstone, Central and Crusher |
Total | 5,576 |
|
73 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 7-2: Exploration Drill holes by Type
Drill Type | Number |
Diamond Drill | 490 |
RC | 4,760 |
Rotary | 163 |
Blast | 67 |
Sonic | 96 |
Total | 5,576 |
Angle | 1,996 |
Vertical | 3,580 |
Exploration by Duval, Homestake, HRDI and HMC has resulted in the discovery of multiple zones of mineralization associated with the Hycroft deposit. This discovery history is shown below in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3: Discovery Years of Hycroft Mineralized Zones
Deposit | Discovery Yr. | Hole No. | Company | Present Condition |
Central | 1977 | Duval | Duval | Oxide Mining, Remaining Reserve and Resource |
Bay | 1981 | SR-1 | Homestake | Oxide Mining, Remaining Reserve and Resource |
Camel | 1981 | SR-27 | Homestake | Oxide Mining, Remaining Reserve and Resource |
Boneyard | 1986 | 86-230 | HRDI | Oxide Mining, Mined Out |
Brimstone | 1986 | 86-256 | HRDI | Oxide Mining, Remaining Reserve and Resource |
Vortex | 2008 | H08D-3170 | HMC | Remaining Reserve and Resource |
7.1.1 | Geologic Logging |
A variety of geologic logging systems have been utilized during the more than 40-year exploration history of the Hycroft deposit. Vista reviewed drill logs from holes drilled during the period from 1986 to 1998 on the Brimstone Zone, which led to the conclusion that issues existed with continuity and consistency of logging observations. Vista geologists re-logged available drill chips and core.
In 2007, HMC further refined the logging system to provide more detail on the intensity, style and distribution of the geologic attributes. All of the previous logging, where possible, has been converted to the current HMC system. The current logging system is shown in Table 7-4.
|
74 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 7-4: HMC Logging Code Fields
Log Form Identifier | Description |
Hole | Drill hole name |
From | Interval start footage |
To | Interval ending footage |
Formation | Formation code |
Lithology | Lithology code |
Malt_T | Main alteration type |
Malt_S | Main alteration intensity |
Malt_M | Main alteration mode |
2Alt_T | Secondary alteration type |
2Alt_S | Secondary alteration intensity |
2Alt_M | Secondary alteration mode |
Vein_T | Vein type |
Vein_S | Vein intensity |
Vein_M | Vein mode |
Min_T | Mineral type |
Min_S | Mineral intensity |
Min_M | Mineral mode |
Sulf_T | Sulfur type |
Sulf_S | Sulfur intensity |
Sulf_M | Sulfur mode |
Ox_T | Oxidation type |
Ox-S | Oxidation intensity |
Ox-M | Oxidation mode |
Struct | Structure |
Texture | Rock texture or structure modifier |
7.1.2 | Surveying |
Prior to HMC drilling, drill holes were surveyed in UTM coordinates and converted to NAD 27 state plane coordinates. In 2007, drill holes were surveyed in UTM NAD 83 and converted to mine grid coordinates. From late 2008 to present, mine surveyors located drill holes using accurate GPS equipment, reporting directly in mine grid coordinates.
7.1.2.1 | Drill Collar Surveys |
Standard operating procedure is for the mine surveyors to lay out planned exploration drill-hole locations by GPS. After drilling is completed on a site, the actual drill hole location is surveyed by the mine surveyors using GPS and the survey data entered into the acQuire database in mine grid coordinates.
7.1.2.2 | Downhole Surveys |
Downhole surveying of historical exploration holes was not carried out on a routine basis. During the 1999 drilling program, downhole, multi-shot, gyroscopic surveys were completed on several of the holes. Results of this work have not shown significant deviations in shallow holes (<1,000 ft) and indicate that the lack of downhole surveys in the historical exploration holes should not pose a problem. All downhole survey data, that is available, has been entered into the database. Current HMC practice is to contract survey the holes using gyroscopic instruments, which is the accepted industry practice. These instruments record orientation, deflection and temperature. From 2009 to present,
|
75 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
all holes, were downhole surveyed if practical. Subsurface temperatures, greater than 140°F, and ground issues have prevented some holes from being surveyed to depth.
7.2 | Drill Sample Recovery |
Ground conditions at Hycroft, especially in the upper 600 feet of the deposit, present difficult drilling conditions for both reverse circulation and core. These ground conditions include acid leach alteration, highly fractured ground, voids, variable lithology and alteration, existing dump material and faults. As a result, reverse circulation and core recovery can be low in the upper portions of the deposit.
Modern day drill techniques and muds have increased recovery to an acceptable range of 80% to 100%, which in the QP’s opinion is acceptable, with losses limited to highly fractured bedrock and unconsolidated dump material. All core is geotechnically logged, and recovery is generally in the 90-100% range, with areas of low recovery restricted to acid leach, unconsolidated dump, and highly fractured zones.
7.2.1 | Reverse Circulation (RC) Recovery |
The RC sample recovery was generally excellent as judged by both field observations and recovered material weights. The average weight of the material collected for a 5-foot sample in 2013 was 6.36 kg for rigs using a 5 ¼ to 5 ½ inch drill bit. Field observations and estimates indicated RC recoveries of 90-95%, and sample collection for analysis is on average 11.5% of that volume. These are consistent with previous year sample mass that averaged 6.26 kg for RC samples in 2012. During the 2013 program, approximately 26% of the RC intervals have no sample recovery, as a result of voids, unconsolidated dump material, highly fractured ground, and acid leach altered material. This number is higher than previous years, as second half drilling was concentrated specifically on unconsolidated dump material at Bay and Gap. In the QP’s opinion, these factors do not materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results, as un-assayed dump material is not included in the current reserve and resource estimate. Areas or holes with consistent recovery problems were re-drilled using core techniques. Average moisture content of the RC material was 20.6%, which is significantly higher than in situ moisture around 2-4% as a result of water injection during RC drilling.
A review of grade versus recovery was completed for a 10% random sampling of RC holes completed in 2012. No statistical bias between weight and grade was noted in this evaluation.
7.2.2 | Core Recovery |
Core recovery is measured by the ratio of length of material returned in the tube versus the total length drilled for the run and expressed as a percent. In 2013, core sample recovery was excellent and in excess of 94% of the bedrock cored, based on geotechnical logging. The average core sample size submitted to the laboratories was 5.04 kilograms or 1.25 kg/ft; however, this is a mix of PQ, HQ, and NQ core sizes, with both ½ and ¼ sawn core submitted. Core loss was generally attributed to acid leached material, alluvium, historical dumps and void spaces. During 2013, 6% of the intervals drilled returned no measurable core, due to void spaces and lost sample. In recovered core, recovery averaged over 95%. Overall core recovery is acceptable at Hycroft and in the QP’s opinion, does not present a sampling issue. Average moisture content of the core was 2.5%.
7.3 | Sampling Method and Approach |
Industry standard sampling of reverse circulation and core was utilized by HMC. Methods for both are discussed below.
7.3.1 | Reverse Circulation Sampling Methods |
Reverse circulation drilling was done with RC tools utilizing a crossover sub and wet sample collection in the upper portions of the hole. A center return tri-cone drill bit was used for intervals of ground water flow. The drillers cleaned
|
76 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
the hole between rod changes and wait for a sample return before collecting assay samples. Drills utilized in 2013 included a Schramm 685, an Explorer buggy rig, and a track mounted rig.
Rock chips were collected continuously down the hole, with individual samples taken over 5-foot intervals. Samples were submitted for assay, as collected on the rig, with standards, blanks and duplicates inserted into the sample sequence as described in the section on Quality Assurance/Quality Control. The drill crews sequentially pre-numbered the bags, by drill hole identifier and the footage interval sampled. The driller’s sampler only tracked the ending footage drilled with respect to the footage marked on the bags. The drill crews were provided with 20-slot chip trays, representing 100 feet total per tray, and numbered them with whole number, start and stop footage for the 5-foot interval. The Hycroft ore deposit is considered a disseminated ore deposit; therefore, 5-foot samples are appropriate to characterize the ore deposit.
Drill water injection was regulated to minimize the fluid return while maintaining sufficient flow for drilling and sample return. HMC geologists provided drill crews with 20-inch x 24-inch bags. Cuttings were collected as a continuous fraction of the return stream from the drill rig by way of a rotary 36-inch vane splitter. The splitter had vane covers that can be added or removed to provide the desired sample weight for each interval. The cuttings were diverted to a 5-gallon, plastic bucket lined with a labeled-sample bag. When the 5-foot sample run was complete, the bucket was removed, and another clean-lined bucket was placed under the spout. The previous sample bag was sealed and placed in drill order at the site.
During drilling, a strainer was placed under the waste discharge spout to collect chips for the character chip tray. At the end of each run, the drill sampler filled the character box slot for the sample interval and discarded the rest. The contents of the strainer were not introduced into the sample bags. When freezing temperatures were expected, the bags were placed on plastic sheets to prevent them from freezing to the ground and ripping when picked up. Sample bags were either dried and drained at the drill site or in a holding area near the sample processing facility.
Filled chip trays were field-checked for numbering accuracy during visits to the drill rig and collected by an HMC geologist for logging by use of a binocular microscope.
Samples were transported down to the shipment staging area where HMC personnel inserted extra bags for certified standards and blanks. Insertion of blanks and standards was handled independently by geologists who created duplicate numbers at appropriate intervals, post scripted with “S” for standard, “Q” for certified quartz blanks, and “B” for blank bulk material.
For HMC drilling between 2006 and 2014, reverse circulation samples were retrieved from the drill rig and stored in sample bins for pickup biweekly by the analytical lab. Before release of the sample bins to the assay lab, sample identification numbers and missing samples were verified at the exploration office located at the Hycroft Mine. The intervals of “no sample recovery” were identified, tagged, and accounted for separately in the sample lists so that the lab reported them as “no sample” rather than “0” or some other arbitrary value.
7.3.2 | Core Drilling Sampling Methods |
Core drills used in 2013 included CT-14 and LF-100 models, utilizing a wire line retrieval system and 5-foot stroke rod advancing systems. All drills are capable of drilling PQ and HQ sized core and reducing to NQ if required.
Core drillers were responsible for obtaining a complete and representative sample of the cored interval in runs not to exceed 10 feet, with shorter increments completed in difficult conditions. Coring was generally begun with large diameter (PQ) rods in the more broken upper zones (0 ft to 600 ft) and reduced to HQ at depth. Ground conditions and drill problems could result in further reduction to NQ core. Core was recovered from the barrel by using a wire line core tube.
|
77 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
At the drill site, the crews placed the core in cardboard core boxes, with tops and bottoms labeled with company, property, hole identification number, box number and starting and ending depths. The bottom of the core box was laid out length wise from left to right, with the marked or labeled end to the left and the unlabeled end to the right. The first portion of core was placed in the upper left-hand tray and continuously laid in the tray from left to right, advancing down one row as each tray is completed. The bottom of the core was terminated in the lower right corner. A wooden block was inserted at the end of each run, as well as in locations deemed important by the drillers to note adverse conditions such as caving, voids, or mislatches, where the core tube failed to seat properly in the core barrel. The ending block for the run was marked with an ending footage on the thin edge and both the cut footage and recovered footage were marked on the larger surface.
Depending on ground conditions, contract drillers used either a 5-foot or 10-foot core barrel to collect samples. After the core was logged, it was the geologist’s responsibility to determine appropriate sample intervals and boundaries. Sample intervals were representative of the mineralization at Hycroft and are generally less than or equal to 5 feet, unless low recovery zones prevent accurate determination of 5-foot sample lengths. Original core blocks were used by core drillers to mark the end of a cored run and ordinarily served as the primary sample boundary, subject to the rules below. Where a conflict existed between the blocks and those rules, the rules prevail, and extra blocks or metal tags labeled with the depth were inserted by the geologist to indicate sample intervals.
· | A sample must not cross a lithologic boundary. |
· | A sample must not cross an obvious alteration boundary, including oxidation. |
· | A sample must not generally exceed 7 feet in length, unless combination of drill run and recovery prevent accurate determination of footage. |
· | Distinct vein zones are sampled separately |
Any core blocks that do not mark a sample boundary, for reason such as ‘cave’, ‘loss’, ‘void’, etc., must be labeled in black magic marker for photographic visibility. Cave zones and refill footage are not sampled for assay purposes.
For diamond drill core, geologists tagged sample intervals and provided sample prep technicians with a list containing the drill hole number and sample intervals. Samples were then saw cut in equal halves by HMC personnel at the Hycroft Mine core facility. Intervals with visible silver mineralization (less than 5%) were sent un-sawn to the laboratories to reduce the risk for sample bias. In 2010, some uncut metallurgical core was delivered to ALS Minerals in Reno, to provide ¾ sawn core for metallurgical testing. After cutting, the ½ sawn core was placed in bags, with sample IDs for tracking. As with the RC cuttings, intervals of “no sample recovery” were identified, tagged, and accounted for separately in the sample lists so that the lab reported them as “no sample” rather than “0” or some other arbitrary value.
The sampling operation avoided bias, to the extent possible, by cutting the core in half perpendicular to the trace of the visible bedding. When prominent veins were noted during logging, the geologist marked the trace of the cut to ensure a representative sample. The portion to be saved was placed in the core box, in its proper position, with core blocks in place. Core boxes were stacked on pallets for storage. The split portion of core was bagged and shipped in bins to the lab.
7.3.3 | Sonic Drilling Sampling Methods |
Rotosonic (sonic) was the best drilling method to recover representative samples in unconsolidated material with variable consistency and particle size. Sonic drilling in 2018 was completed by Major Drilling, based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Core diameter was nominally 4 inches. A minor proportion of the drilling required casing; in holes with casing, an oversized 6-inch bit was used to advance the hole. The drilling and sampling techniques used for the sonic drilling program are different from the typical procedures used for reverse circulation or wireline diamond core drilling. The procedures described below pertain only to the 2018 sonic drilling program.
|
78 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Holes were advanced in 10-foot runs. At the end of each run, the drill steel was tripped to surface to collect the sample in the core barrel, at the bottom of the string of drill steel segments. A tube of polypropylene film knotted on the end was placed on the end of the core barrel. The core barrel was tilted about 20 degrees from vertical and the sample material flowed from the core barrel to the bag. When all material was in the bag, the plastic was trimmed and knotted on the top end. Each 10 ft interval was labeled and stored at the rig until the end of each shift. While at the drill pad, samples were under supervision by the drilling crew and Hycroft staff.
At the end of each shift, samples were transported to the Hycroft core shed, which was locked when not occupied. The sample tube bags were placed on cardboard PQ core boxes without dividers. Depths were measured from the tube bags and noted on the boxes. Approximate recovery was noted. The plastic film was cut away, to leave the sample material in the boxes.
A polypropylene sample bag was labeled with a serial sample ID, determined from a list of drill intervals and reference samples. Hycroft staff used a clean sample scoop to collect approximately 25% of the cuttings from the core box to the assay sample bag. Typical sample weight was between three and four pounds. The scoop allowed sampling of variable particle sizes and material consistency. Sample reduction would have been impractical with a riffle splitter, due to the variation in particle size and presence of clay. Between 10 ft sample intervals, the scoop was wiped with a clean towel to avoid cross contamination. Sample intervals matched the drill intervals and were nominally 10 ft unless the drill run was less than 10 ft, at the end of a hole. Samples were stored in the secured core shed prior to transportation to the lab.
7.4 | Sample Quality |
Sample quality on RC and core rigs was assured by daily inspections of rigs during operating hours. Samples were inspected for correct labeling, size (10 lb. to 20 lb. target on reverse circulation) and condition. Core boxes were inspected both on the site and during logging for labeling, position and recovery. Zones of low recovery were noted on drill logs and on core blocks. Recovery and sample quality were also assessed using lab weights compared to expected weights. Industry standard use of muds and drill techniques were applied to ensure as good of quality sample from each drill hole interval.
7.5 | Sample Location |
Sample location is tied to both the collar and downhole survey, along with the hole ID and downhole footage. All of these items were reviewed daily by Hycroft geologists.
7.6 | Downhole Surveys |
Down hole surveying was conducted by IDS of Nevada. Gyroscopic techniques were used to locate drill hole deviations and are accepted as an industry standard of data quality. Most historic drilling was not down hole surveyed. The downhole survey results are downloaded directly into the acQuire database.
7.7 | Final Collar Surveys |
Upon drill hole completion, the Hycroft Mine surveyor located the collar coordinates of drill holes using an accurate GPS device and reports data in the mine grid coordinate system. The collar coordinates were saved to the acQuire database.
7.8 | Geotechnical Rock Mass Characterization |
The geotechnical quality of the Hycroft rock mass has been characterized by Call & Nicholas Inc. (CNI, 2011) and Golder Associates, through analysis of surface and drill-hole information. The characterization program was designed
|
79 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
to collect data necessary to predict the stability of planned pits. The geotechnical data collection, analysis and design were primarily conducted in 2010 and 2011. Further review of design was completed in 2013 and 2014. In 2016 the geotechnical parameters were reviewed by Golder Associates.
Geomechanical properties have been established through analysis of parameter data from both surface and drill-hole sampling programs.
Sixty-one surface structure cells were mapped in the current pit walls and rock outcrops in early June 2010. This data was used to determine statistical distributions of joint orientations, joint length and joint spacing.
Rock Quality Data (“RQD”) data has also been collected by HMC on most core holes drilled in the deposit, starting in 2007. Additionally, eighteen core holes were drilled to collect geomechanical parameters and structure orientations to answer specific stability questions. These holes were drilled and logged in the 4th quarter of 2010 and 2011.
RQD zoning was accomplished near the sections used in the overall stability analyses. The RQD length-weighted average and standard deviation have been calculated for each geomechanical zone.
Laboratory testing of samples has been conducted to determine rock strength. This testing has been completed in the CNI laboratory, according to ANSI procedures.
The rock strength test program included the following:
· | Twelve small-scale direct-shear (“SSDS”) tests for soil like samples of argillic Tsg, Tcm and fault gouge. |
· | Twelve sieve analyses, hydrometers and Atterberg limit tests to determine the classification of the soil-like and fault gouge samples. |
· | Nine SSDS tests were conducted on rock joint surfaces for the ALS unit, and for silicified and propylitically altered rocks. |
· | Twenty-seven uniaxial compression tests on the various rock and alteration types recognized at Hycroft. Fourteen of these samples were instrumented with strain gauges to determine the elastic properties of the intact rock. |
· | Seventeen triaxial compression tests were performed on the various rock and alteration types. |
· | Eighteen small-scale direct-shear (SSDS) tests were conducted for the unconsolidated Camel Conglomerate (Tcm). Sieve and hydrometer analyses and Atterberg limit tests were performed to characterize the Tcm and to determine correlations between logged core parameters and the shear strength of the Tcm. |
Intact shear strength has been estimated from the uniaxial compression, triaxial compression, and Brazilian Disk Tension test (Table 7-5).
|
80 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 7-5: Hycroft Intact Shear Strength by Rock Type
Rock Type | Density (pcf) | Uniaxial Compressive Strength | Triaxial Compressive Strength | Hoek's m i | Poisson's Ratio | Young's Modulus (psi) | ||||
Mean (psi) | Standard Deviation (psi) | Cohesion | Friction Angle | |||||||
Mean (psi) | Standard Deviation (psi) | Mean (deg) | Standard Deviation (deg) | |||||||
Silicified Tuffs and Breccias | 155 | 22010.60 | 1972.76 | 3526.56 | 316.07 | 54.5 | 4.7 | 27.9 | 0.17 | 4.83E+06 |
Propylitic Volcanics. | 149 | 8337.00 | 1903.56 | 1722.25 | 393.24 | 45.1 | 10.3 | 15 | 0.19 | 3.90E+06 |
Argillic Volcanics near East Fault Zone * | 136.4 | 1107.7 | --------- | 232.9 | --------- | 37 | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- |
* This value was estimated from very limited testing of argillically altered volcanic rock in the footwall of the East Fault Zone during a 1997 study to evaluate failures associated with the fault zone.
Rock-mass shear strength has been established through analysis of:
· | Intact block size (related to RQD, fracture frequency, and number of joint sets) |
· | Intact rock shear strength |
· | Fracture shear strength |
· | Fracture orientations (determines the number of degrees of freedom of movement) |
The calculated rock mass strength values are shown in Table 7-6.
Table 7-6: Rock Mass Strengths Used in the Stability Analyses
Intact Rock Strength | Fracture Strength |
70% Reliable RQD
(percent) |
Rock Mass Strength | |||||||
Rock Type |
Alteration
Type |
Density
(pcf) |
Φi
(degrees) |
ci (psi) |
Φf
(degrees) |
cf (psi) |
Φrm
(degrees) |
crm (psi) | ||
Kamma Mtn 1 | Propylitic | 149 | 45.10 | 1722.25 | 26.51 | 6.80 | 64 | 34.50 | 162.90 | |
Kamma Mtn 2 | Anisotropic | 149 | 45.10 | 1722.25 | 26.51 | 6.80 | NA | 27.55 | 92.60 | |
Volcanic Bxa 3 | Argillic | 136.4 | 37.00 | 232.90 | 24.00 | 6.60 | 37.9 | 26.70 | 12.20 | |
Silicified Vol. Bxa 4 | Silicified | 155 | 54.50 | 3526.56 | 30.48 | 7.07 | 69 | 42.50 | 377.50 | |
ALS 4 | Silicified | 155 | 54.50 | 3526.56 | 30.48 | 7.07 | 69 | 42.50 | 377.50 | |
ALS 5 | Propylitic/ Argillic | 149 | 45.10 | 1722.30 | 22.85 | 3.41 | 15 | 27.70 | 46.20 | |
ALS 6 | Bedding | 149 | 22.85 | 3.41 | NA | 22.85 | 3.41 |
Comments: | ||||||||||
1. crf = 0.35 | ||||||||||
2. For Steep Back Plane >50 degree, Fault Length to Spacing to come up with %intact based on TMR L=719 S=146, %intact = 5.5 Use 5% | ||||||||||
3. Avg Tensile 204 psi, used Myer corrected phi of 37 from 1997 study of H2 volc. Bxa, and backed into uniax strength of 1107.7 psi. Seems OK. Crf = 0.5; the fracture shear strength used was the average of all Tcm tests (this is a bit different rock near the East Fault, but should be reasonable) | ||||||||||
4. crf = 0.35, 1- shear 3901-1276, use 80% Rel. RQD to account for stress Damage | ||||||||||
5. Oblique to Bedding in Argillic and Propylitic ALS. GT 20 degree dip. Use Propylitic Kamma Mtn, with ALS bedding fracture strength and RQD of 15 percent | ||||||||||
6. Anisotropy for bedding dips less than 20 degrees toward pit |
|
81 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
7.9 | Hydrogeology |
The hydrogeology of the Hycroft Mine and local area has been evaluated by SRK, in collaboration with HMC, through execution of a data collection program from 2010 through 2012 (SRK, 2011; SRK, 2013). Overall the Hycroft Mine area presents a complex hydrogeologic regime that includes fault associated fluid barriers, high temperature groundwater and the presence of H2S gas. The three-year hydrogeologic data collection program utilized groundwater wells and piezometers, core hole hydraulic testing, and short and long-term aquifer testing to characterize the local groundwater system, with project specific approaches and equipment necessary at times to improve overall data quality.
Forty wells and piezometers have been installed in the Hycroft district to monitor groundwater levels and to measure hydraulic properties of the water bearing geologic formations. An additional 18 monitoring wells were installed in the basin approximately three miles west of the mine for water supply exploration. Groundwater elevation data were collected from wells within and surrounding the Hycroft Mine to define the potentiometric surface. In general, the groundwater gradient through the Hycroft Mine is primarily horizontal, east to west, flowing from the volcanic highlands in the east and discharged in the alluvial basin beneath the Black Rock Desert to the west at an average gradient of 2%. The depth to groundwater across most of the mine area is within about 700 ft of the ground surface. Range front structures associated with the Kamma Mountains define compartmentalization of the local groundwater system across the resource areas of the Hycroft Mine. This is demonstrated in part by the weak barrier imparted by the East Fault on the east side of the mine area. The potentiometric data in this area suggests an elevation difference of 360 ft across the East Fault, with higher groundwater elevations present in the east (footwall) side of the fault. Vertical flow is less prominent, however a comparison of potentiometric between shallow completions (<800 ft) and deep completions (>800 ft), indicates a small downward vertical gradient. Vertical groundwater flow also occurs, primarily within high-transmissivity faults (in particular the Albert, Break, Central, and Range faults), and primarily downward, although high heat and gas flow suggests that local upwelling may also occur locally (SRK, 2014).
Hydraulic properties of geologic units present in the Hycroft district have been estimated through testing of monitoring wells and piezometers, with faults tested through packer-isolated aquifer testing in numerous core holes. While extensive testing was completed, given the potential variability of hydrogeologic parameters within the faulted volcanic terrain, and complexity in testing a high temperature, gas-filled aquifer, the resultant characterization data should be considered indicative, but not absolute.
Hydrogeologic units for groundwater modeling have been established based on the test data. The Hycroft Mine 3-D geologic model has been utilized to apply the test results across the mine area. Seven primary hydrogeologic units and nine faults comprise the groundwater hydrogeology:
· | Qal – Quaternary alluvial and colluvial material consisting of high clay content gravels and sediments displaying moderate to relatively high permeability. These sediments generally lay to the north, west and south of the mine area, and includes the coarse to fine alluvial fan facies within the Black Rock Desert. |
· | Qcl – Tertiary lacustrine sediments of the Black Rock Desert having low permeability. |
· | Tsg – High clay content lacustrine sediments of low permeability, locally inter-bedded with thin lenses of coarse gravels having moderate to high permeability. |
· | Tcm – Matrix supported water-lain/worked conglomerates derived from volcanics. |
· | Tk – Weakly to moderately altered volcanic rocks of intermediate permeability. |
· | Rhyolite – A deep component of the Tk sequence; probably intrusive, permeability not currently known. |
· | ALS – Jurassic age metasedimentary basement rocks, assumed to be of low permeability. |
· | Faults/Structures - Variably altered fault zones of low to high permeability cutting all other units, including Albert, Break, Camel, Central, Cliff, East, Prill, Ramp, and Range Faults. |
The hydrogeologic units and structures tested, along with corresponding properties from testing and values utilized in the numeric groundwater flow model, are listed in Table 7-7.
|
82 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 7-7: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Values Measured in Field and Used in Model by Hydrogeologic Unit
Hydrogeologic Unit | Number of Tests |
Geomean
K value (ft/day) |
Average
K value (ft/day) |
Max K value
(ft/day) |
Min K value
(ft/day) |
K value Used/Calibrated in
Numerical Model (ft/day) |
Alluvium | 4 | 1.3E-01 | 4.7E-01 | 1.6E+00 | 1.7E-02 | 1.3E-01 |
Fan Coarse | 9 | 2.8E+01 | 4.8E+02 | 1.4E+02 | 1.0E+00 | 4.05E+01 |
Fan Transition | 1.44E+01 | |||||
Fan Fine Facies | 3.4E+00 | |||||
Quaternary lakebed sediments (Qcl) (Kh/Kv) | 3 | 1.4E-03 | 6.9E-03 | 2.0E-02 | 2.1E-04 | 0.02/0.002 |
Camel conglomerate (Tcm) unaltered | 1 | 4.1E-03 | 4.1E-03 | 4.1E-03 | 4.1E-03 | 4.1E-03 |
Camel conglomerate (Tcm) altered in mine area | 3 | 2.2E-02 | 2.5E-01 | 7.3E-01 | 8.7E-04 | 8.0E-02 |
Tuffaceous lacustrine sediments (Tsg) in North Central Valley | 3 | 3.9E-03 | 8.8E-03 | 2.3E-02 | 1.3E-03 | 3.9E-03 |
Kamma Mountain volcanic rocks (Tk) altered (mine area) | 5 | 3.2E-02 | 8.3E-02 | 1.9E-01 | 6.5E-04 | 3.2E-02 |
Kamma Mountain volcanic rocks (Tk) unaltered (Hades/Central Kammas) | 8 | 4.4E-03 | 1.6E-02 | 7.0E-02 | 5.5E-04 | 5.2E-03/3.0E-03 |
Albert Fault | 1 | 1.16E-01 | 1.16E-01 | 1.16E-01 | 1.16E-01 | 7E-01 |
East Fault | 8 | 1.5E-01 | 1.0E-01 | 4.0E-01 | 1.0E-01 |
2.0E-03 (Kx) 3.0E-01 (Ky) |
Central Fault | 3 | 3.1E+00 | 5.25E+00 | 9.1E+00 | 5.5E+00 | 3.1E+00 |
Break Fault | 4 | 8.2E-02 | 3.7E-01 | 1.3E+00 | 2.4E-02 | 2.4E-01 |
The Black Rock Desert basin is west of the mine and is composed of low-permeability alluvial and lacustrine sediments and the sediments in the margins of the basin are composed of higher permeability alluvium. A large alluvial fan emanates from the Rabbithole Creek and Granite Springs Wash drainages and extends approximately 15 miles north into the basin. The freshwater well field, composed of three active and seven inactive production wells, is located on this alluvial fan in coarse-grained alluvial deposits of sand and gravel that extend from the location of the existing production wells PW-2/PW-3 to the south up into the apex of the fan.
Hydrostratigraphic information from a geophysical investigation and the installed monitoring wells, combined with the aquifer testing data, suggests that the local basin aquifer is sufficiently thick to support large-scale production wells pumping up to 1,000 to 3,000 gpm. Eight production wells were drilled and cased in 2013. The production wells range between 12 and 24-inch diameter casing, have screens approximately 300 to 600 feet below land surface, and have varying pumping capacities between 300 and 3,200 gpm (HDR, 2013).
Precipitation is estimated to be 7.7 inches per year based on an average of historical records from local weather stations in Imlay, Gerlach, Lovelock, and Rye Patch. The Maxey-Eakin recharge method was used to estimate recharge from precipitation with a relationship derived between elevation and precipitation. Groundwater recharge has been estimated to be 0.088 to 0.924 inches per year, depending upon elevation (1-7% of measured precipitation). The
|
83 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
maximum possible evapotranspiration rate has been assumed to be 59 inches per year, based on average data from the nearby Rye Patch and Imlay weather stations, with an extinction depth of 10 feet below ground surface.
SRK developed a preliminary 3-D numerical groundwater model of the project area to evaluate inflow to the proposed ultimate pit and potential dewatering requirements for mine expansion (SRK, 2011). This model is based on all available geologic, hydrologic and hydrogeological data. The groundwater model is a geologically based, fully representational model utilizing the commercially available finite-difference code Visual MODFLOW-SURFACT (SWS, 2010 and Hydrogeologic, 2006). The groundwater flow model of the Hycroft project area was constructed by:
● | Incorporating 3-D stratigraphical and structural geological models. |
● | Assigning estimated hydraulic parameters of major hydrogeologic units, faults and outer boundary conditions. |
● | Simulation of recharge from precipitation, plus evapotranspiration. |
● | Calibrating the model to measured water levels during steady state (with mining above water table) conditions and evaluating the groundwater budget. |
This 3-D numerical groundwater model was twice updated by SRK in 2014 and 2019 (SRK, 2014 and 2019). The groundwater model was expanded and re-calibrated in 2014 and only dewatering predictions were updated in 2019. The latest version of the model was transferred into Groundwater Vistas (ESI, 2017).
This model provided the basis for estimation of passive inflow to the proposed pit and design of a potential active dewatering system. The model is based on the current available hydrogeologic data collected through the various field investigation programs at the Hycroft Mine. Ongoing evaluation of the hydrogeologic system will be required as the mine advances to better educate the groundwater model, as well as refine inflow predictions to allow for dewatering system optimization and target/strategy adjustment.
|
84 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
8 | Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security |
Hycroft drill hole samples were shipped to accredited, independent laboratories in Reno or Elko, Nevada, for sample preparation and analysis. Sample security and handling procedures were not investigated in detail by the QP, because they have been reported in previous technical documents. In the QP’s opinion, the sample handling, preparation, and analysis methods meet current industry standards for quality, and pose little risk to the quality of Hycroft’s analytical data.
Sample preparation and analysis techniques are listed below, by laboratory. These techniques were used at different times during HMC development of Hycroft. Sample preparation and analysis methods used for Hycroft samples at ALS and INS are comparable.
· | ALS Chemex (ALS) |
o | Preparation codes CRU-21, CRU-31, SPL-22Y, PUL-32: Two-phase crushing, rotary split 1000 g, pulverize to 85% < 75 µm (200 mesh). |
o | Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption finish, determine total gold and silver |
o | Hot Cyanide Leach to determine cyanide-soluble gold and silver |
· | BVI Inspectorate/ Acme (INS) |
o | Preparation code SP-RX-2K: Crush, split, pulverize 250g to 200 mesh (< 74 µm). |
o | Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption finish, determine total gold and silver |
o | Hot Cyanide Leach to determine cyanide-soluble gold and silver |
o | Composite pulp samples for sulfur analysis, method TC009, total sulfur minus sulfate sulfur |
· | McClelland Laboratories, Inc. (MLI) |
o | Preparation code STD-PREP: Crush, split, pulverize 250g to >90% passing 150 mesh (0.1 mm). |
o | Fire Assay with Atomic Absorption finish, determine total gold and silver |
o | Cyanide Shake Leach to determine cyanide-soluble gold and silver |
o | Mercury from cold vapor Atomic Absorption finish |
o | Total sulfur and sulfide sulfur determination with LECO-type furnace |
· | American Assay Labs (AAL) |
o | Generated composite samples from prepared pulps, generally 25-foot lengths |
o | Sulfur and carbon analysis, method ELTRA-S |
o | Multi-Element ICP with aqua regia digest |
Method detection limits vary between labs for similar determinations, but are comparable for all but total silver. Analytical methods and detection limits for total silver varied through the history of the Project, and total silver was not commonly reported until recently. The total and cyanide-soluble gold, cyanide-soluble silver, and sulfur results from different laboratories are appropriate to consider together for grade estimation.
8.1 | Sample Preparation |
The sample preparation procedure prior to 1999 was not documented. Sample preparation in 1999 consisted of drying, crushing, splitting and pulverizing the split.
A transmittal sheet for both the bagged core and RC samples by drill hole was prepared for submission to the laboratory. Once at the laboratory, samples were prepared from a split of 70% passing minus 3 mesh if pieces were too large to fit in the pulverizer, and further crushing of 70% passing minus 10 mesh. A 2.2-pound split is taken and pulverized to 85% passing minus 200 mesh.
No officers, directors, or associates of the issuer were operationally involved with the routine sample preparation.
|
85 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
8.2 | Assay Method |
Prior to 1992, most samples were sent to Barringer Laboratories Inc. in Golden, Colorado, for fire assay and selected intervals were cyanide soluble analyzed. From 1992 to 1999, samples were processed at the Hycroft laboratory. After 1999, samples were sent to outside laboratories for processing.
From 1992 to 1999, all of the samples were analyzed for cyanide soluble gold and silver at the Hycroft laboratory. The method employed at Hycroft was a non-standard procedure that has been developed to provide a semi-quantitative measurement of recoverable gold and silver.
HMC used four independent laboratories for assay analysis. The companies are ALS Minerals, American Assay Laboratories, Inspectorate, and McClelland Laboratories, Inc., all located in Sparks/Reno, Nevada. ALS Minerals is ISO9001:2000 compliant and has ISO17025 accreditation. American Assay Laboratories participates in the following accreditations: certificate of ISO/IEC17025, certificate of laboratory proficiency PTP-MAL, accredited by standards council of Canada, geostats of Australia certificate, Society of Mineral Analysts (USA) – round robin testing. Inspectorate has ISO9001:2008 certification. McClelland has ISO/IEC17025 certification. During 2012, the Hycroft Mine Laboratory completed gold and silver fire and gold and silver cyanide assays on 10 drill holes. The Hycroft lab was not certified at this time, but a comprehensive testing of the lab results was completed to verify reported analysis. This testing was completed by ALS Minerals, based in Sparks, NV, and verified the HRDI lab results during this period. There was no further use of the HRDI lab for exploration samples in 2013 or later programs. Assay methods used at the various laboratories are summarized in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Analytical Methods
Element | Method Name | Description | Level of Detection | Laboratory |
Gold | AuAA23 | Fire assay with AA finish | 0.005ppm | ALS |
Gold | AuGRA21 | Fire with gravimetric finish | 0.05ppm | ALS |
Silver | AgGRA21 | Fire with gravimetric finish | 5.00ppm | ALS |
Gold | AuAA13 | Hot cyanide, AA finish | 0.03ppm | ALS |
Silver | AgAA13 | Hot cyanide, AA finish | 0.03ppm | ALS |
Gold | FA1AT | 1 assay-ton fire, AA finish | 0.100ppm / 0.103ppm | Inspectorate |
Gold | Au30CN | Cold Cyanide, AA finish | 0.03ppm | Inspectorate |
Gold | 2-FA-11 | Fire with gravimetric finish | 0.003opt | Inspectorate |
Silver | Ag-AR-TR | Aqua Regia digestion, AA finish | 0.1 ppm | Inspectorate |
Silver | FA/GRAV | Fire with gravimetric finish | 3.40ppm / 5.00ppm | Inspectorate |
Silver | Ag30CN | Cold Cyanide, AA finish | 0.03ppm | Inspectorate |
Gold | FA30 | Fire Assay, 30-gram charge | 0.003ppm | American Assay |
Gold | AuCN | Cyanide with AA finish | 0.03ppm | American Assay |
Silver | GRAV | Gravimetric finish | 7.00ppm | American Assay |
Silver | D2A | 2 acid (aqua regia) digest | 0.200ppm | American Assay |
Silver | AgCN | Hot Cyanide with AA finish | 0.03ppm | American Assay |
Gold | FA-AAAu | Fire assay with AA Finish | 0.001 opt | McClelland |
Silver | 4 ACID-AA-Ag | Four acid digestion, AA finish | 0.010 opt | McClelland |
Gold | FA-30-Au | 1 assay-ton fire, AA finish | 0.0003 opt | McClelland |
Silver | FA-30-Ag | 30g fire assay for Ag with AA finish | 0.01 opt | McClelland |
Gold | CN.SHAKE-Au | 10g sample, 1-hour ambient temp agitated leach with AA finish | 0.0003 opt | McClelland |
Silver | CN.SHAKE-Ag | 0.0003 opt | McClelland | |
ICP | ICP-24 | 24 element ICP | Variable by element | Florin |
Mercury | Hg-FIMS | Mercury direct by FIMS | 0.010 ppm | McClelland |
ICP | MEMS41 | 41 element ICP | Variable by element | ALS |
ICP | ICP-2D | 36 element ICP | Variable by element | American Assay |
Sulfur | SR-I07 | Sulfide Values by LECO | 0.01% | ALS, McClelland |
Carbon, Sulfur | Eltra | Carbon and Sulfur values by LECO | 0.01% | American Assay |
|
86 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
8.2.1 | Precious Metal Fire Assay Analysis |
All HMC drill samples were fire assayed using either a gravimetric or Atomic Absorption (AA) finish for gold and silver. Earlier operators, however, primarily fire assayed only for gold.
In the second half of 2013 and after, industry standard aqua regia digestion was used for total silver assays. This method replaced the gravimetric silver analysis completed previously. Rationale is a lower detection limit on the aqua regia results to 0.1 ppm, compared with 5 ppm for gravimetric analysis.
8.2.2 | Cyanide Soluble Precious Metal Analysis |
Industry standard cyanide soluble gold and silver analysis was completed on all HMC drill samples that returned greater than 0.100 ppm Au. The hot cyanide analytical procedure, originally developed by the Hycroft lab and utilized on most pre-2013 drill intervals, was discontinued.
8.2.3 | ICP Multi-Element and LECO Sulfur Analysis |
All drilling by HMC in 2007 and 2008 was assayed using a 35-element, total digestion, multi-element method, and generating 56,327 individual ICP assays. As this program provided a broad distribution of trace element data, only a limited number of samples were assayed by ICP in 2010. In addition, a limited number of sample intervals were assayed for trace elements during historical drill campaigns. In 2011, 93 holes were selected for ICP and LECO analysis at American Assay. These holes were selected to provide an approximate 500 by 200-foot spaced grid over the current reserve pit, for both ICP and LECO analysis. A sub-set of drill holes from 2012 and 2014 were also selected for multi-element ICP and LECO sulfur analysis. Sulfide sulfur analysis results that tie into production at Hycroft have been used to estimate values in the block model.
8.3 | Sample Security |
Samples were delivered to the analytical laboratory in the numbered bags, along with a transmittal sheet with the list of sample numbers, the total sample count, and codes for sample type, either RC cuttings or drill core. The lab has no knowledge of the spatial reference of the individual samples, beyond knowing the footage of a particular hole.
A variety of certified standards were submitted with each drill hole, ranging from 0.2 ppm to 2.2 ppm gold. Generally, one blank and one standard per 40 samples was submitted to the lab and checked against known values prior to database loading. In addition, a sample of unmineralized rock (marble, granite, or scoriaceous lava) was submitted as a blank and is the first sample in each drill hole group of samples, to identify potential laboratory contamination.
Core samples sawn on site were picked up by ALS Minerals or Inspectorate drivers for delivery to their facilities in Reno and Elko. American Assay Lab had been contracted by HMC to do independent assay verification on existing pulps and LECO/ICP analysis on prepared pulps. These pulps are stored at the Hycroft Mine site, and randomly selected sets were picked up on site by American Assay Lab for analysis.
Chain of custody was established by transmittal sheets, sample receipt documents from the lab and by work orders and certificates.
An HMC copy of the transmittal sheet was stored at the Hycroft Mine, along with a digital copy on the server. Once assays have been received, a copy of the assay certificate sheet is stored with the drill logs, and the original with the transmittal sheets and a digital copy is kept on the server. The transmittal sheets are indexed by job number.
Copies of the sample sequence list, the lithology log and assays are stored in paper format at the Hycroft Mine. Digital copies of all material are kept on a dedicated, backed-up server and all data is ultimately stored in the acQuire
|
87 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
database, located on an independent backed up server. Originals of all logs and assays are stored in file cabinets on a per hole basis, indexed by hole number. HMC personnel contact the lab to obtain a job number assignment for whole or partial hole shipment and arrange for sample pickup by the lab's driver.
Coarse reject material and sample pulps were returned to the Hycroft Mine by laboratory staff and stored on site. Access to the sample preparation and storage area is limited to geologic staff.
8.4 | Analytical Results |
Following analysis, results were posted to a digital laboratory database on which HMC had secure permission privileges. Managers downloaded the data where the sample results were cross referenced to sample numbers. Each drill hole carries a unique self-identifying sample number, simplifying the cross-referencing. The completed digital file for each drill hole was emailed to HMC by the lab and a follow-up, hard copy certificate is mailed to company offices.
Results were checked by geologists visually and loaded into the secure acQuire database. The acQuire database is further checked using electronic methods and then calculated into ounce per ton (OPT) values from values reported in parts per million and loaded to the modeling database for display and further visual QA/QC checking. During SRK’s data verification, the group considered the impact of using assay values in ounce per ton units with lower precision than the reported values in parts per million. Assays in PPM were compiled to use for estimation, and historical assays reported in OPT were converted to PPM. This dataset allowed lower values to apply to estimation, to match the calculated cutoff grade that was close to the lower detection limit of pre-2006 gold fire assay results.
8.5 | Quality Assurance (QA) & Quality Control (QC) Check Sample and Check Assays |
8.5.1 | Historical QA/QC Program |
After 1991, exploration samples were assayed for cyanide soluble gold and cyanide soluble silver at the Hycroft laboratory. Fire assays were also performed, however, no decipherable QA/QC data exists for these assays.
8.5.2 | HMC QA/QC Program |
The HMC QA/QC program included analysis of standard reference materials (standards), blanks, and duplicate pulps, as well as check assays by umpire laboratories. The program was designed with the intent that at least one standard and one blank were inserted into the drill sample stream for every 40 drill samples (200 ft), which is the number of HMC samples in each ALS Chemex analytical batch. In practice, the insertion rates for the QA/QC samples were somewhat higher, based on drill hole depth.
8.5.2.1 | Certified Standards |
Reference samples were used to evaluate the analytical accuracy and precision of the assay laboratory during the time the samples were analyzed.
HMC utilized certified reference standards from Minerals Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry (MEG) of Reno, Nevada, in the 2015-16 Demonstration Plant program. Table 8-2 below lists these standards. The Standard Certified Value is the MEAN value from all test labs. The lower and upper cutoff limits represent a 95% confidence limit applied to the upper and lower limits of the range of values from all test labs.
|
88 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 8-2: Certified Standards
Standard | Standard Source |
Certified
Value (ppm) |
Standard Deviation |
Lower Cut-off
Limit (LCL) |
Upper Cut-off
Limit (UCL) |
AN12001X | MEG | 0.014 | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
AN12002X | MEG | 0.010 | 0.001 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
AN12004X | MEG | 0.020 | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
S107009X | MEG | 0.137 | 0.016 | 0.104 | 0.170 |
S107010X | MEG | 0.187 | 0.009 | 0.169 | 0.204 |
S107011X | MEG | 0.271 | 0.013 | 0.245 | 0.295 |
Source: Hycroft, 2016
The standards were assigned sample numbers at random and inserted into the demo plant sample stream. Hycroft compiled 52 analyses of these standards and 6 analyses of bulk blanks. This equates to an insertion rate of approximately one standard or blank for day of plant operation. McClelland Laboratories completed all analysis during 2016.
HMC used six standards with known gold values, four standards with known silver values, one blank standard, and one coarse blank in QA/QC. Performance of the standards was tracked for 2016 by standards and blanks, both over time and against lower and upper cut off limits. Evaluation over time does not show any significant decay or increase for the standards utilized. For gold reporting all samples reported within the Upper and Lower Cutoff Limit. For silver reporting two samples from AN12001X and three from AN12002X reported over limits. The following discussion of the standard results includes graphical representations of the data over time and within the upper and lower cutoff limits (Figure 8-1 to Figure 8-4).
|
89 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
**Shaded areas reflect upper and lower cutoff range
Figure 8-1: MEG AN12001, 2, and 4X AuFA Standards Results
|
90 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
**Shaded areas reflect upper and lower cutoff range
Figure 8-2: MEG AN12001, 2, and 4X AgFA Standards Results
|
91 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
**Shaded areas reflect upper and lower cutoff range
Figure 8-3: MEG S107009, 10, and 11X AuFA Standards Results
|
92 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
|
||
**Shaded areas reflect upper and lower cutoff range Note: 10 and 11 are gold only standards |
Figure 8-4: MEG S107009, 10, and 11X AuFA Standards Results
The drilling assay certificates for Hycroft were loaded directly into the acQuire database. The program compared the standard and blanks against known upper and lower cutoff limits, and required review of any results outside acceptable ranges.
8.5.2.2 | Check Assay Program |
A total of 2,109 drill intervals from the 2011-2012 drill programs were selected for assay checks as part of the QA/QC program. This represents approximately 5% of the total drill intervals during the selected timeframe and were randomly selected using acQuire. Original pulped samples were collected by exploration technicians from the Hycroft pulp storage yard and shipped to American Assay Lab in Reno for analysis. Check assay analysis has been completed on a range of fire assay values from below detection to 3.340 g/t Au and 570 g/t Ag. Samples that assayed below the detection level for the analysis method used were set to 0.0 g/t for this analysis. Figure 8-5 illustrates the overall distribution of the original assay AuFA lab data (ALS Minerals and Inspectorate) against the American Assay Lab
|
93 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
re-assayed results. The R-squared value for both AuFA and AgFA indicates a high linear distribution between the two datasets (Figure 8-5 and Figure 8-6). Average gold fire values differed by 2.6%, while silver fire values differed by 3.2%
No additional drilling was completed in 2015-2016; however, HMC will continue to select a 5-10% sample set for check assays at regular intervals in future drilling programs.
Figure 8-5: Check Assay - AuFA
|
94 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 8-6: Check Assay - AgFA
During 2012 assay work at ALS, the laboratory performed a series of independent checks on duplicates from the Hycroft drilling program. Two different duplicate assay protocols were conducted as part of the internal lab QC protocol. The first was a preparation duplicate, where a split is taken after initial crushing, and then processed through pulverizing and all analytical procedures. The second duplicate was taken after pulverizing (pulp) and then processed through all analytical procedures. The first split provides quality control on laboratory precision from preparation and analysis, while the second provides quality control on analytical precision. During 2012, 5,899 pulp duplicates and 1,337 preparation duplicates were evaluated by ALS. Results are summarized in the Table 8-3 and illustrated in Figure 8-7 through Figure 8-10.
Table 8-3: ALS Duplicates
Prep Method | Assay Method |
Average Original
Assay (ppm) |
Average
|
Percent
Difference |
Number of
Sample Pairs |
Pulp Duplicate | Au-AA23 | 0.421 | 0.398 | 5.6 | 2,404 |
Pulp Duplicate | Ag-GRA21 | 12.25 | 10.96 | 10.6 | 2,133 |
Pulp Duplicate | Au-AA13hc | 0.182 | 0.186 | -1.8 | 661 |
Pulp Duplicate | Ag-AA13hc | 5.69 | 5.51 | 3.1 | 701 |
Prep Duplicate | Au-AA23 | 0.244 | 0.237 | 2.7 | 429 |
Prep Duplicate | Ag-GRA21 | 11.06 | 10.94 | 1.0 | 562 |
Prep Duplicate | Au-AA13hc | 0.095 | 0.090 | 5.6 | 170 |
Prep Duplicate | Ag-AA13hc | 6.14 | 5.88 | 4.3 | 176 |
|
95 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 8-7: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, Total Gold
Figure 8-8: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, CN-Soluble Gold
|
96 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 8-9: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, Total Silver
Figure 8-10: 2012 Pulp Duplicates Relative Percent Difference, CN-Soluble Silver
|
97 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The results indicate good correlation in all the duplicate samples, with less than 6% variance in all methods, except for pulp duplicates with silver fire analysis. The 10.6% variance encountered in this subgroup is a result of a detection limit of 5 ppm, which is higher than the difference between the original and duplicate assay result.
The targeted resource cutoff grade of 0.003 opt gold (0.10 ppm) is five times the lower method detection limit (MDL) for total gold from fire assay. The lower MDL for cyanide-soluble gold is 0.03 ppm (0.00087 opt). Although CN-sol gold is not used directly for resource estimation, the Au CN:FA is used to define metallurgical material types. Therefore, analytical uncertainty limits the validity of ratio values for samples with low Au CN and/ or Au FA values. Samples with 0.001 or 0.002 opt Au values in the database were assigned to a material category separate from samples with significant mineralization.
The data analysis and charts show the performance of the available duplicate pairs, and the variation of values as they approach the lower MDL, which is +/- 100% of the reported value. The apparent scatter in low grade sample pairs reflects analytical uncertainty near the lower MDL. At about 0.1 ppm gold, the relative difference generally decreases and most sample pairs fall into the targeted range for variation.
Silver grades at Hycroft are variable, and silver mineralization is not genetically related to gold. Another complication in total silver results is variable analytical methods and detection limits. SRK reviewed the relative percent difference charts for silver results to evaluate confidence in the analytical data, and a minimum threshold for silver grade shells to constrain estimation. A resource cutoff grade for silver is not straightforward like gold, so SRK deferred to the limits of analytical confidence to constrain the silver estimation to a minimum of 0.1 ppm cyanide-soluble silver. Total silver was not commonly reported historically, and the CN-soluble silver dataset is more complete. Cyanide-soluble results are also more analytically consistent through time than total silver results.
8.6 | Opinion On Adequacy |
Part of the economic mineral resource at Hycroft is near the threshold of analytical validity for older drilling. Discrepancies between modeled and mined grades have been an issue in the past in low grade zones. The gold fire analysis analytical method detection limit ranges for pre-HMC drill samples yield results that are invalid below 0.1 ppm (0.003 opt). However, areas with older drilling and no recent infill drilling have mostly been mined out. The lower precision of legacy assay data will likely have a minor impact on the resource estimation.
In the QP’s opinion, the sample preparation and analysis procedures used for Hycroft drill hole samples meet current industry standards for quality and the assay results are suitable to use for mineral resource estimation and related geological modeling.
|
98 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
9 | DATA VERIFICATION |
The HMC drill hole database has been validated by the HMC exploration group. A review and validation of the HMC collar coordinate, down-hole survey, and geology data was completed in Q3 2014 by HMC geologists.
SRK completed data verification and validation in advance of geological modeling and resource estimation, first between May and July 2017, for gold, silver, sulfide sulfur, and total sulfur analytical results, and for logged geological data. During this review, the analytical databases were found to be incomplete. SRK worked with Hycroft to extract all available analytical data from the acQuire database. This resulted in a 58% increase in the sulfide sulfur dataset. The compilation of gold and silver assay values in parts per million (PPM) units resulted in more intervals with valid Au CN:FA values for oxide modeling, and greater precision for grade estimation. SRK completed data verification for the new analytical database in September 2017.
9.1 | Verification of HMC Drill Data |
9.1.1 | Data Selection |
A check against laboratory certificates of all electronic assay data used in the resource model was completed in 2014 by HMC geologists. SRK verified data tables received between May and July 2017, and appended data to some, as described below.
The 2018 sonic drilling program was used for grade estimation in sulfide stockpiles only. Available data, limited to collar locations and assay results, were verified in preparation for estimation. Database values matched source documents, and no corrective actions were required. The data verification summary below pertains to the drillholes that inform the in-situ material in the grade estimation model.
9.1.2 | Collar Survey Checks |
Collar surveys were range-checked by HMC geologists for minimum and maximum northing, easting and elevation. The coordinates were also checked against the planned coordinates to detect errors in either set of numbers and for reversal (swapped coordinates). Drill hole plots were visually checked in Maptek Vulcan® and on topographic photo-based maps to confirm that holes are on the correct drill pads and map coordinates.
Drill hole collar locations were provided in <hycroft_auag_lith_042915_dhd_collar.csv>, which has 5,270 drill holes. The file <DrillingByMethod.xlsx> included the type of drill used, and length of reverse circulation vs. diamond core for holes pre-collared through barren material. SRK appended the drill type and lengths to a copy of the main collar location table.
SRK verified collar location coordinates and total depths for sixteen drill holes. These were selected to resolve issues noted during the initial data review, and to verify the most recent drilling. All drill hole collars verified were for Hycroft drill holes, and about half were drilled in 2014.
· | AT-8 is 200 feet below the pre-mining topographic surface, and it may have the incorrect XYZ location. This drill hole was omitted from the model database. |
· | The collar elevation for H14R-5375 was the same as Max Depth, 160 feet. XYZ coordinates were corrected from the collar survey document provided by the client. |
· | H10D-3374 and H10R-3855 had identical collar locations and are both vertical. Hycroft provided the surveyed collar location for 3374. Sample and geology sheets for 3855 have conflicting total depths, and no collar or downhole survey documents were provided for this hole. 3855 was omitted from the modeling database. |
|
99 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | 88-1388 and 90-1447 have identical collar locations and downhole survey trajectories. According to former HMC mine geologists, 90-1447 should have priority, and 88-1388 should be ignored. 88-1388 was deleted from the collar table. |
· | Drill holes with collar coordinates and downhole surveys were found in the ACCDB tables, and appended to the model files if the drill holes also had assay data. After the compilation of assay data in parts per million units was completed, 178 drill holes were appended to the collar table. Most of these are water wells, sonic core holes on the leach pad, or are located southeast of the model boundary. The additional holes are likely to have a minor impact on the resource, but allow all assay data to be represented for this and other future modeling purposes. |
SRK’s collar table for modeling includes 5,501 drill holes, with a total of 2,482,722 drilled feet, and average depth of 455 feet. Of these, 5,257 drill holes are in the model domain and will be considered for resource estimation. The drill holes in the model domain have 2,351,634.1 total feet drilled, and average depth of 451 feet.
9.1.3 | Downhole Survey Checks |
All downhole surveys were checked electronically for minimum and maximum azimuth, inclination and depths. Surveys are checked against the planned azimuth and inclination to detect errors. Surveys were allowed to be taken within 200 feet of the expected hole total depth to ensure that the survey is completed before the drill is finished. Surveys were projected by the downhole surveyor to the expected total depth. Downhole surveys for drill holes completed since 2008 were completed by IDS, with north-seeking gyroscopic instruments.
In cases where the water temperature was too hot (above 140°F) to continue surveying, the deepest data was projected to the hole bottom. Total depths for projected downhole surveys, where different than actual depths, were extended or truncated to the actual depths using the projected data.
Downhole survey geometry was provided to SRK in <hycroft_auag_lith_042915_dhd_survey.csv>, for 5,263 drill holes. The file <DownHoleSurvey.xlsx> was an inventory of drill holes and indicated if each had a gyroscopic downhole survey completed.
The drill holes missing surveys in the data table are listed below.
· | H13D-4562- TD 34ft |
· | H13R-4772- TD 120ft |
· | H13R-4786- TD 100ft, survey completed per inventory |
· | H13R-4806- TD 380ft |
· | H13R-4879- TD 100ft |
· | H14R-5396- verified, TD 680ft, survey document in verification package. |
· | H14R-5399- TD 645ft |
According to the downhole survey inventory sheet, these were not surveyed except for H13R-4786. However, the downhole survey document from IDS for H14R-5396 was provided by Hycroft in the data verification package. Downhole survey information only for H14R-5396 was added to the survey table to include it in the model. Other recent drill holes have complete downhole surveys that were not imported to the master database, and have placeholder values. The number of placeholder values in the survey table was not quantified for this review.
SRK verified downhole survey data for 13 drill holes and most database values matched source documents. The exceptions were recent drill holes without final gyroscopic survey values loaded in the database, for H14R-5321 and
|
100 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
H14R-5396, as noted above. SRK appended the actual survey data to the table for modeling. These changes have minor impact on the model, but make the drill hole geometry consistent with the rest of the dataset.
SRK’s downhole survey dataset for modeling includes all 5,501 drill holes in the collar table. There are six recent drill holes missing surveys. These also have incomplete geological and analytical data, and are expected to have minor impact on the model.
9.1.4 | Gold and Silver Assay Verification |
Laboratory source data files for all pre-2012 holes had been electronically checked. In March 2014, Hycroft exploration staff randomly checked 2,301 assay intervals, approximately 7% of all 2013 drill intervals included in the model update. The database values were compared directly with hardcopy laboratory certificate assay results. There were no errors or discrepancies related to the gold and silver assay values listed on the certificates and saved to the database.
SRK extracted the relevant results from the main acQuire database that was converted to a Microsoft Access database. All analytical results, including gold, silver, sulfur and carbon, and multi-element ICP values, are stored in the database table “dbo_CORPSAMPLEASSAY” and are identified by the sample ID. A summary of the gold and silver data in the master database table is presented in Table 9-1.
Recent drilling by HMC comprises 1,970 of the 5,501 (36.1%) drill holes in the database, and 1,426,739 of 2,482,722 (57.4%) drilled feet. Areas that lack recent drilling by HMC are generally mined out. Although different generations of assay data are merged in the new table, most of the in-situ material is informed by recent assay results reported in PPM. Older assay data reported in OPT will has a relatively low impact on estimated grades.
Table 9-1: Summary of Gold and Silver Values in Master Database Table
Units | Category | Records | Lab |
PPM
(ANV) |
Gold Fire Assay | 235,108 | CMX |
Gold Cyanide | 15,1247 | CMX | |
Silver Fire Assay | 232,218 | CMX | |
Silver Cyanide | 138,272 | CMX | |
Total ALS Chemex | 756,845 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 30,978 | INS | |
Gold Cyanide | 15,195 | INS | |
Silver Fire Assay | 31,265 | INS | |
Silver Cyanide | 15,073 | INS | |
Total Inspectorate | 92,511 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 5,303 | AAL | |
Gold Cyanide | 2,483 | AAL | |
Silver Fire Assay | 1 | AAL | |
Silver Cyanide | 2,483 | AAL | |
Total American Assay | 10,270 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 235 | UNK | |
Gold Cyanide | 235 | UNK | |
Silver Fire Assay | 5 | UNK | |
Silver Cyanide | 235 | UNK | |
Total Unknown Lab | 710 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 965 | SGS | |
Silver Fire Assay | 844 | SGS | |
Total SGS Lab | 1,809 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 1,970 | HYC | |
Gold Cyanide | 1,970 | HYC |
|
101 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Units | Category | Records | Lab |
Silver Fire Assay | 1,970 | HYC | |
Silver Cyanide | 1,970 | HYC | |
Total Hycroft Lab | 7,880 | ||
Total PPM values | 870,025 | ||
Gold Fire Assay | 180,830 | UNK | |
OPT | Gold Cyanide | 161,612 | UNK |
(Legacy) | Silver Fire Assay | 18,077 | UNK |
Silver Cyanide | 125,146 | UNK | |
Total OPT values | 485,665 |
Source: SRK, 2017. |
Most drill samples completed by HMC were sent to ALS Chemex/Minerals (CMX) in Reno, Nevada for preparation and analysis for gold and silver. The latest HMC drill holes were sent to BVI Inspectorate (INS) in Reno for preparation and analysis. A sub-set of samples was analyzed at American Assay Labs (AAL) in Reno for check assays to validate the primary results. Results from these labs comprise most of the PPM dataset.
Reported values were stored in the database with Sample ID as the identifier. SRK worked with the Hycroft master database, but was not able to locate a master sample list with Drill hole ID, From depth, and To depth, matched to Sample ID. Most of the Sample IDs were the serial number of the drill hole and the ending depth of the sample, and the Drill hole ID and depth interval could be reproduced from the Sample ID. SRK generated a master sample list and with the VLOOKUP function in Excel, populated the drill hole ID and interval values in the assay tables. The drill hole IDs and From-To depths were verified against the assay table provided initially, to honor gaps between samples. The sample list for PPM assay results has 274,555 records and assigns Drill hole ID and depth to 268,251 unique sample intervals. Some drill hole IDs were not in the collar table, and therefore, the Drill hole ID is unpopulated in the assay data table.
Many intervals had multiple values for fire assay gold and the other parameters. This was due to multiple analysis techniques and check analysis. The rank of analytical methods is listed in the database table “dbo_ASSAYTYPE” and was used to determine which value should be applied to the main dataset for modeling. While cleaning the data, the pattern of check assays from AAL emerged, and was consistent for the entire dataset. High values from conventional fire assay typically had gravimetric analysis also. If available, the gravimetric fire assay value was used instead of the conventional fire assay value.
Results from earlier drilling, mostly by Vista Gold Corporation, were reported in ounces per ton. This legacy data is in the database table with the more recent data, and the units are clearly denoted for all values. Because these data also appear in the initial assay table, SRK adopted the OPT values as received, and converted them to PPM by multiplying by 34.286. By using the original data table that contained Drill hole ID and depth interval, the data processing effort for legacy data was minimized.
SRK’s assay data table has 456,910 records, about 8,200 fewer than the original table. The difference may be attributed to gaps between samples in HMC drill holes that are not populated in SRK’s table but are populated with -9 values in Hycroft’s table. Excluding drill holes outside of the model domain, and sonic core holes in the leach pad areas, about 97.5% of the SRK assay table will be considered for resource estimation.
|
102 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
9.1.5 | Total and Sulfide Sulfur Verification |
The assay data table for total sulfur and sulfide sulfur is from an extraction of the acQuire database completed on July 21, 2017, by a technical support representative at acQuire Technology Solutions. This is the complete dataset from Hycroft’s main database, and SRK assumed this represents the most current set of sulfide results that were validated and imported. When the possibility of a complete data extraction from the Hycroft database was uncertain, Hycroft requested all results from sulfur analysis certificates from the lab and made them available to SRK.
The sulfide table includes fields for total and sulfide sulfur results by lab, as well as total and organic carbon by lab. The carbon results were not applicable to SRK’s work scope. There were some overlapping intervals with results from CMX and AAL. The CMX results were for assay samples, and were superseded by composite sample results from AAL. Over 90% of the sulfur data are reported by AAL between 2011 and 2012; the rest, by INS, in Q4 2014.
Results from H12D-3606 are in the dataset but the From-To values are zero. Intervals were not available in the source documents, and these results are not currently usable for modeling. There were four drill holes with duplicated intervals. After verifying the intervals and results reported by Inspectorate, SRK corrected the data table to match source documents.
The dataset is summarized below:
· | 5,408 records in 149 drill holes. |
· | INS reported ONLY sulfide sulfur, no total sulfur or carbon, in 23 drill holes, mostly in the Bay deposit, analyzed in Q4 2014. |
· | Total and sulfide sulfur results from AAL for 126 drill holes. |
· | 5,271 records with sulfide sulfur values; 137 samples from several drill holes are missing sulfide values. |
· | 4,889 records with total sulfur values, from AAL only. |
Future database work should include resolving the zero values for composite interval depths, and validating all 150 sulfur certificates from AAL for drill hole samples. There may be additional sulfur results from INS, the complete set of certificates should be obtained from the lab to validate. All valid sulfide data should be imported to the HMC master database for future sulfide sulfur estimation. In the QP’s opinion, the sulfur data is sufficient for modeling.
9.1.6 | Geological Data Check |
HMC geologists loaded geologic logs directly to the acQuire database, preventing the use of invalid logging codes and format. Visual inspection of logging data was completed to detect data entry errors. The dataset was checked electronically using scripts to compare data against source files, and to find discrepancies. Logs were visually checked against electronic data and by examining core photos where necessary. Start and ending log footages are checked for gaps and overlapping values. Holes were checked that the encoding of RC and Core (R or D) in the hole name is correct.
Total depths in the database were checked against total depths as drilled and against maximum assay depths. Several hole maximum depths as logged were found to be short by a few feet as these are the result of a missing sample for those intervals not recorded in the geologic logs. The differences are minor and are not likely to affect lithology modeling.
Logged geological data were provided to SRK in <hycroft_auag_lith_042915_dhd_geology.csv>, for 4,899 drill holes. There are 96 recent holes without logged geology. These are H*R- drill holes, all RC, that were completed in 2014 and not logged. There are 275 older holes without geology data. Lithology and alteration shapes provided by the client were validated without this missing data. Of the 21 drill holes selected for data verification, only six had available geologic logs. About half of the drill holes selected for verification were completed recently, and may not have hard copies of the electronic logs.
SRK selected five drill holes for verification of logged lithology and formation, after noting discrepancies between logged and modeled lithology in the wireframes. The database codes matched the source logs for the drill holes with available geology logs. There is a discrepancy between modeled lithology and logged lithology in H11D-4289, where the logged
|
103 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Tcm and Tk contact was not honored in the model. This has limited impact on the model, and the modeled lithology elsewhere generally honors drill hole data. Generally, modeled alteration solids honor logged alteration. The drill hole H12D-4436 was selected to verify logged argillic and silicic alteration, which both occur in the area modeled as a boundary between the two. The alteration model solids are exclusive, meaning that they do not overlap, so defining a boundary between two alteration types that occur together is a judgement call made by the geologists.
SRK targeted about seven drill holes to verify oxidation and mineralogy logging. Logs for these were not available. Logged mineralogy and oxidation are applicable for defining metallurgical material types in material without gold data, in non-mineralized zones or intervals that lack valid cyanide-leachable to total gold ratios.
SRK used the geology table as-is for alteration and metallurgical material modeling.
9.1.6.1 | Hardness |
Hycroft provided logged hardness R values in the file <Hardness_HYCROFT_052212.csv> on July 12, 2017. The R hardness scale is qualitative, and ranges from 0 to 6, as integers. Real numbers are in the data table, from average values from logged sub-intervals in drilling runs. One drill hole had a geotechnical log available for verification. Logged and average values closely matched the database for this drill hole. Because the hardness scale is qualitative and imprecise by nature, and because values seem reasonable compared to the lithology and alteration they represent, in the QP’s opinion, this dataset is suitable for estimating rock hardness as a component of mining and processing cost.
9.1.6.2 | Density |
Hycroft provided the available density data from specific gravity determinations on drill core and pit wall samples in <Master Density 2010.xlsx>. The file includes one tab with raw density data for 884 samples by Sample ID, data source, lithology, and alteration, and a tab with average density values summarized by material type. Laboratory values reported are Specific Gravity, in grams per cubic centimeter. Over 90% of the density values are from core samples collected by Allied Nevada and tested by ALS Minerals in 2010-2011. Calculated tonnage factors, as cubic feet per ton, are also included in the raw data table. SRK saved a copy of the raw data as a CSV file to import modeling software and added a field for drill hole ID. Thirty-five samples are grab samples from the Brimstone pit and do not have location coordinates. Two drill holes with twenty samples, 94-2394 and 94-2395, are not in the resource model domain and were excluded from the summary information below. Density sample locations are shown by data source in Figure 9-1, with traces of core holes and the 2018 optimized pit surface. Density values by lithology and alteration are summarized in Table 9-2. The available data were analyzed by SRK and Hycroft, to estimate tonnage factors and density values to apply for mineral resource estimation. Available data included bulk density values collected during mining, in addition to data from core sample testing.
|
104 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 9-1: Density Samples with Optimized Resource Pit, Looking North and Down
Source: SRK, 2019
|
105 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 9-2: Density Data Summary
Material Type | Samples |
Density
(grams per cubic cm) |
Tonnage Factor
(cubic ft per ton) |
|
Alluvium | 13 | 1.97 | 16.26 | |
Camel Formation | Acid Leach | 17 | 2.05 | 15.63 |
Argillic | 107 | 2.11 | 15.18 | |
Propylitic | 6 | 2.14 | 14.97 | |
Silicic | 225 | 2.53 | 12.66 | |
Unaltered | 17 | 2.31 | 13.87 | |
Kamma Formation | Acid Leach | 33 | 2.51 | 12.76 |
Argillic | 93 | 2.24 | 14.30 | |
Propylitic | 46 | 2.26 | 14.18 | |
Silicic | 233 | 2.49 | 12.87 | |
Unaltered | 39 | 2.41 | 13.29 | |
Auld Lang Syne Formation | Silicic | 10 | 2.65 | 12.09 |
Unaltered | 7 | 2.63 | 12.18 | |
No Logged Lithology | Acid Leach | 9 | 2.78 | 11.52 |
Silicic | 3 | 2.52 | 12.71 | |
Total Samples | 858 |
Source: SRK, 2019
9.2 | Verification of Historical Drill Hole Data |
SRK completed a data check of the historical database in February 2008 for HMC. The electronic database provided to SRK, by HMC, contained approximately 3,183 drill holes including 186,123 records. SRK was able to locate and check original hard copy assay certificates for 175,002 records or 94%. In the process, the drill collar file was supplemented with additional details regarding laboratories and analytical detection limits. The data verification program was carried out from October 2007 through January 2008.
The Hycroft electronic database was provided by HMC in Microsoft Access format. SRK examined the contents of available historic data sets before selecting the most complete set. The database used for verification and development was called “hyc2000.db1.mdb.” The data from the 2005 Canyon Resources drilling program was added to this database.
SRK was able to check 94% of the assay database against paper copies and logs. Minimal errors were noted (<1%) and errors were corrected in the database. The database consists of gold and silver assays, both fire and cyanide.
From 1983 to 1992, some full hole sample sets and other partial hole sets (selected mineralized ranges) were analyzed by Barringer. SRK was unable to locate the assay methodology or QA/QC procedures from Barringer. From 1991 to 1999, all exploration samples were analyzed on site by the Hycroft laboratory. No QA/QC records are available for this period of testing. On the occasion when Barringer check assays were available, in addition to Hycroft results, the Barringer check assay results were considered most reliable (as Barringer was an accredited facility). From 1999 to 2006, only minor analytical work was done; all by off-site laboratories such as AAL and CMX Minerals.
|
106 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Geologic data was checked and validated by MRDI in 2000. As part of the MRDI program, 1,740 drill logs were selected for checking against the electronic files. A 0.8% average error was identified so they concluded the data was accurate. SRK followed up on the previous work, randomly selecting 150 drill logs for confirmatory checking. Although localized errors were observed in some of the six fields of geological data, no systematic errors were identified, such as large ranges of intervals with mismatched data. In the QP’s opinion, the data is free of significant error and is appropriate for use in the determination of resources and reserves.
Several historical survey record books were preserved in the files of the Hycroft engineering office. The books contain collar coordinates of drill holes. Approximately 100 holes listed in the survey record books were checked in the electronic database, with no errors found. All of the drill data was imported into a 3-D modeling program. The collar elevations were successfully checked against the topographic surface appropriate for the time in which they were drilled.
Downhole surveys are uncommon in the historical database. There were no historic records to which the electronic data could be compared. An examination of the drill hole traces in 3-D, using the modeling program, indicates projections for the surveyed holes that appear reasonable in the opinion of the QP.
Following rigorous, record-by-record checks of the analytical database, the temporary electronic worksheets were reassembled into a single database which serves as the “assay” file for the project. The revised database contains original and updated fields for the four main analyses as follows:
ORIGINAL | NEW | DESCRIPTION | |
FAu | NFAu | Fire assay gold | |
FAg | NFAg | Fire assay silver (rarely assayed/reported) | |
CNAu | NCNAu | Cyanide soluble gold | |
CNAg | NCNAg | Cyanide soluble silver |
The population of historical assay intervals was 186,123. SRK checked 175,002 intervals (94%). They identified total errors at 13%, of which 7% were related to missing data or data below detection limit. A total of 6% of the database contained substantive numerical errors, which were replaced by the reported values from the assay certificates. The most common errors were single shifts, where all records of an assay certificate were shifted by one interval (up or down). Next, there were examples of missing grades in the original electronic database for which certificate values existed. The certificate values were entered into the appropriate fields. Finally, there were occasional decimal errors made during input, which were corrected.
Drill hole coordinates were compiled into a new collar file for the database. In addition to collar coordinate information, the collar file has also been used to track the laboratory used for each drill hole, as well as the detection limits for the major elements tested.
In the assay database, records with no sample, no data, or missing data have been coded as -9. For all intervals whose value is below the detection limit for that element, the intervals have been coded as -8.
9.3 | Opinion on Data Adequacy |
The location, analytical, and geological data in the Hycroft database were verified against available source documents for selected drill holes. Verification focused on recent drilling, and on the sulfur dataset, to address concerns from the initial data review. In the opinion of the QP, enough is now known about the source of the sulfur data to apply it to resource estimation. The compiled assay data in PPM units is also applicable to resource estimation in the opinion of the QP.
|
107 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
10 | Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing |
HMC has been operating the Hycroft open pit mine and run-of-mine heap leach facility, to produce gold and silver since 2008. Prior to that, Hycroft was operated in a similar manner by Vista Gold. The cumulative performance statistics and metallurgical test data gathered are extensive.
Beginning in 2007, Hycroft Mining examined milling options to expand production, including direct cyanidation of high-grade oxide ore, and production of a flotation concentrate from sulfide ore, followed by an oxidative treatment of the concentrate. The original focus was on oxidation methods primarily employed in the Nevada gold industry, including pressure oxidation (POX) and roasting. Test work on these processes showed that each of these options work well.
In 2013, the Company began testing a suite of alternative oxidation methods, including chlorination, ambient pressure alkaline oxidation, fine-grinding with intense cyanidation, and a procedure similar to the Albion process. The goal was to develop an economically viable process that would be less expensive to build and operate than autoclaves and that would eliminate the need for offsite concentrate sales.
Batch test results were positive and indicated that Hycroft concentrates were amenable to oxidation under atmospheric conditions, using trona as the acid neutralizing agent. Continuous pilot plant testing on three main domains was completed at Hazen Research to confirm these results.
In 2016, the viability of the atmospheric oxidation process using trona was demonstrated in a 10 ton-per-day integrated pilot plant at the mine site. This plant included primary grinding of 3/8” material, followed by flotation, atmospheric oxidation, cyanide leaching, counter-current decantation (CCD) and Merrill-Crowe precipitation.
The objective of the current study is to determine if soda ash, a refined form of trona, can be used to oxidize sulfides in a heap leach operation prior to irrigation with cyanide solution. This process, which is the subject of a pending patent application, will accomplish two goals, namely, the liberation of gold and silver in the sulfides by oxidation, thereby increasing its recovery, and the reduction of the heap’s potential to turn acidic during cyanide leaching.
Over a decade of research into various carbonate oxidation systems has laid the foundation for the pre-oxidation and cyanidation process. A history of processes that have contributed to the development of this technology is included to show the progression of the mechanism used for oxidation as well as the logic that led to current operating procedures.
10.1 | Metallurgical Testing History |
The metallurgical test programs conducted on the Hycroft deposit consisted of a series of comminution, flotation, concentrate oxidation, and cyanide leaching tests on whole ore, flotation tailing, and oxidized sulfide concentrate. The samples were mostly derived from drill cores. The bulk of the flotation tests were conducted at G&T Kamloops Laboratories (“G&T”) and SGS Lakefield (“SGS”), both in Canada, and by Hazen Research Inc. (“Hazen”) in Colorado.
Core samples for metallurgical testing were selected to represent the orebody, taking samples from five ore domains, as they were classified at the time. The main sources were Central, Brimstone and Vortex domains.
Ore was also classified as “oxide,” “transition,” or “sulfide,” depending on the solubility of its gold content in cyanide solution (refractoriness). Ores having cyanide-soluble gold contents of 70% or higher are classified as oxide ore. Those with cyanide-soluble gold contents below 30% are considered sulfide. The remainder, with cyanide-soluble contents between 30 to 70% are considered transition ores. The classification has been shown to have no strong correlation with sulfide sulfur content.
|
108 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
10.1.1 | Direct Cyanidation |
Direct cyanidation leach results of bulk samples taken from all zones on the deposit were conducted early in the test program in 2010, yielding poor results, as expected. Concentrate was ground to a P80 of 325 mesh for this testing. Recoveries from Brimstone and Vortex were in the mid-20% range for gold and 80% range for silver, while other components of the deposit yielded recoveries ranging from 45 to 50% for gold and 55 to 83% for silver. In general, all samples being tested were direct cyanide leached for baseline comparison.
A good measure of recovery by direct cyanidation is the ratio of cyanide soluble metal to the total assay of the metal, that is, AuCN/AuFA and AgCN/AgFA. These ratios have been determined for a large number of exploration samples and have been included in the resource database. The cyanide soluble ratios for gold have been utilized in reserve estimation, particularly to route certain ores with higher cyanide-soluble gold to the heap leach pad without requiring the pre-treatment step.
10.1.2 | Flotation |
Refractory gold in Hycroft ore is believed to be associated in iron sulfides, primarily pyrite and marcasite. The goals of these tests were to determine the floatability of the sulfides, and the recovery of gold and silver in the sulfide concentrate. The ability to recover gold and silver in the sulfide concentrate reduces the volume of material to be treated.
Initial flotation test work was performed by SGS Minerals Services, Lakefield (SGS) in March of 2009 and continued at several laboratories until April 2014. During this time frame, the testing program began with bench scale tests and moved into pilot plant scale flotation tests at G&T and Hazen:
SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) Batch Tests – March 2009
SGS Minerals Services (Lakefield) Batch Tests – Nov 2010
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA) Batch Tests – Jan 2011
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA) Locked Cycle Tests – May 2011
G&T Metallurgical Services Ltd. – Feb 2011
Hazen Research, Inc. – August 2011
Hazen Reaserch, Inc, - April 2014
A previous technical report [M3, 2016] provided a detailed review of the flotation results, which can be summarized as follows.
· | The general trend indicated that flotation can achieve good recoveries at grinds ranging from 100 to 150 microns. Recoveries tended to decrease with grinds finer than 100 microns or coarser than 150 microns. |
· | Tests on the use of sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) were mixed, but generally resulted in poor recoveries. |
· | Flotation in neutral pH, in general, performed better than tests at basic pH. |
· | The reagents used were strong, non-selective sulfide collectors, particularly potassium amyl xanthate (PAX) at 0.21 to 0.55 lb/t. |
· | Several tests indicate Cytec’s AEROPHINE 3418A Promoter (sodium diisobutyldithiophosphinate) may improve gold and silver recovery. |
· | Variability flotation tests conducted by G&T [G&T Metallurgical Services, 2011] yielded an average mass pull of 13.8 percent. |
|
109 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | The same set of tests indicated a flotation time of 19 minutes for gold and 17 minutes for silver to achieve target recoveries. |
10.1.3 | Concentrate Oxidation |
Oxidation tests on Hycroft concentrates included pressure oxidation (POX), roasting, atmospheric oxidation and other oxidation methods. The results indicated that these processes will work, with varying degrees of recovery. The following is a summary of the results of these tests. Atmospheric oxidation will be discussed separately in more detail.
10.1.3.1 Pressure Oxidation
Previous test work on POX had been conducted on pilot plant concentrates to determine operating criteria. The results indicate that: 1) an operating temperature range of 383°F to 401°F; 2) 100 psi oxygen overpressure; and 3) 60 minutes’ residence time produce the highest cyanide amenability for gold and silver recovery. The POX tests also indicate that the concentrates may be prone to form jarosites, which inhibits silver recovery. The evidence for jarosite formation is:
· | Color of the acidic autoclaved pulp is yellow on discharge and reddish brown when conditioned with a lime boil. |
· | Silver recovery is higher when the pulp is treated with a lime boil, a procedure which subjects the hot pulp for several hours to alkaline conditions. |
The gold and silver recoveries from rougher concentrate POX discharge material that has been lime boiled and then leached with cyanide was in the mid-90s and 80s, respectively.
10.1.3.2 Roasting
Roaster test work was conducted on the Brimstone concentrate from a pilot plant to determine optimum conditions for processing. The results indicate that the optimum roast temperatures are between 797°F and 842°F (425°C and 450°C).
During the tests, average recoveries of 89% Au and 74% Ag were achievable from the concentrates by varying the leach and roast conditions slightly for the majority of the concentrate produced.
10.1.3.3 Other Oxidation Methods
Alternative methods were later tested, including chlorination, bio-oxidation, fine-grinding followed by intense cyanidation, and a procedure similar to the Albion process. In all cases, gold and silver recoveries from the oxidized ore were a function of the degree of oxidation.
10.1.3.4 Atmospheric Oxidation – Batch Tests
The focus of testing over the years 2013 through 2016 was to develop a process to oxidize sulfide concentrates under atmospheric conditions. The process was envisioned to be conducted in an agitated slurry at elevated temperatures, using oxygen as the oxidant and trona as the neutralizing agent for the acid produced. Several batch oxidation tests using trona were done at Hazen under various conditions on concentrates from Central, Brimstone and Vortex composites.
Batch tests using trona showed that full oxidation is not required to attain high recoveries in subsequent cyanide leaching, consistent with the findings of earlier oxidation studies. About 85% of the gold and 92% of the silver can be recovered by cyanidation if 60% of the sulfide-sulfur content in the concentrate is oxidized. The results for gold are shown in Figure 10-1.
|
110 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The reaction kinetics were also found to be improved by higher temperatures up to 75ºC. Higher reaction temperatures (around 90ºC) were tested but returned slower oxidation kinetics, perhaps due to the decreased oxygen solubility in the laboratory bench-scale setting.
Figure 10-1: Gold and Silver Extractions Vs. Sulfide Oxidation
10.1.3.5 Pilot Plant Oxidation Tests
Continuous pilot tests in 10-liter vessels were completed at Hazen for the three domains. The results confirmed the findings of the batch tests. The pilot plant tests were run using 600 lb of trona per ton of concentrate, at 75ºC, 25-micron grind size, 20% solids and 48 hours’ total residence time. Different material types oxidized at varying rates, with Vortex materials oxidizing the fastest followed by Central and then Brimstone. The Master Composite oxidation rate was comparable to Brimstone.
· | Gold recovery versus sulfide oxidation was better than anticipated from bench scale tests; |
· | 80% gold recovery achieved at 50% sulfide oxidation for all material types |
· | 87% gold recovery achieved at 60% sulfide oxidation for all material types |
10.1.3.6 Hycroft Mill Demonstration Plant
Hycroft Mining built a demonstration plant with nominal capacity of 10 tpd at the Hycroft mine site. The plant consisted of a ball mill, a rougher flotation bank, concentrate and tailing thickeners, a regrind mill, oxidation tanks, neutralization tanks, an oxidized concentrate thickener, cyanide leach tanks, counter-current decantation (CCD) thickeners, and a Merrill-Crowe precipitation package. It was operated continuously as an integrated plant, with concentrate surge capacity before oxidation and a pregnant solution storage before Merrill-Crowe. A report on the results of conclusions from the demonstration plant has been prepared by M3 and Blue Coast (Ibrado et al., Hycroft Mine Mill Demonstration Plant Initial Report, 31 October 2016) and presented in the National Instrument 43-101 feasibility study report [Ibrado, A., et al, 2016].
The demonstration plant was operated with Central and Brimstone ore that were mined from exposed mineralization at the surface of the current open pit.
|
111 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Highlights of the demonstration plant test results are shown in Figure 10-2 for Central ore. For clarity, only results from Tank 1 (TK1) and Tank 5 (TK5) are shown. Oxidation levels of 60% or better were achieved when the correct steady-state testing conditions were maintained.
Figure 10-2: Oxidation of Central Flotation Concentrate: Sulfate Spike Test
Once the concentrates were oxidized, gold and silver recoveries significantly improved over the direct cyanidation recoveries. The results of cyanide leaching of oxidized concentrate are shown on Figure 10-3 as recovery of gold and silver during the demonstration plant operation. The graph starts with Central concentrate and then switches to Brimstone concentrates on 6/11/2016. Recovery of gold and silver from Central concentrate peak at around 85%. Gold recovery from Brimstone reaches 80 percent while silver recoveries from Brimstone peaked at 90%. The general shape of the lines roughly follows the degree of oxidation of the concentrate.
Figure 10-3: Demonstration Plant Cyanide Leach Recovery of Au and Ag
10.2 | Application of Carbonate Assisted Oxidation in Heap Leaching |
Hycroft explored the application of soda ash in heap leaching sulfide and transition ores. The interest was initially driven by the potential of faster restoration of heaps that have become acidic because of sulfide oxidation in the heap. The
|
112 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
solubility of soda ash in water is much higher compared to lime. As an extension of this logic, the interest developed in whether soda ash could provide enough neutralizing power to enable heap leaching of transition and sulfide ores.
Preliminary column leach tests were performed during the time the demonstration plant was being operated. Hycroft also build two test pads, running ore samples from the Central and Brimstone deposits. Some of the results from these tests indicate that oxidation in a heap in the presence of soda ash can transform sulfide ores into transition and oxide ores (increased cyanide-soluble gold) and improve gold recovery in transition ores. The results encouraged Hycroft to continue testing the process to optimize the conditions and to better understand the mechanism of oxidation.
As in the atmospheric oxidation of concentrates, the oxidation of exposed sulfides in the heap could be accelerated by the catalytic action of the ferrous-ferric carbonate redox pair, without producing CaSO4 precipitates.
10.2.1 | Phase II Column Leach Tests |
Based on preliminary experiments, oxidation and leaching tests were performed in sequence in order to separate cyanide from the carbonate/bicarbonate solutions. The general procedure, similar to the current study, is discussed in detail later in this section. Oxidation was estimated by the amount of total sulfate produced. Table 10-1 below shows some of the column leach tests for Central Sulfide, Brimstone Transition, Bay Transition and Vortex Sulfide.
Table 10-1: Oxidation and Metal Recoveries Attained in Phase 2 Column Leach Tests
Column | Domain | Redox | Days Ox | Oxidation* | Au Rec | Ag Rec |
Nominal | % | % | % | |||
32 | Camel | Sulfide | 120 | 33 | 65 | 60 |
43 | Central | Sulfide | 60 | 27 | 85 | 85 |
44 | Central | Sulfide | 60 | 25 | 75 | 71 |
40 | Central | Sulfide | 60 | 7 | 63 | 67 |
51 | Brimstone | Transition | 90 | 21 | 62 | 50 |
55 | Bay | Transition | 90 | 25 | 69 | 49 |
58 | Vortex | Sulfide | 60 | 9 | 53 | 26 |
The original oxidation target was about 45%, which was chosen based on the recovery v oxidation plot developed from the concentrate oxidation study. The goal was to attain 60 to 70% gold recovery. The results above clearly did not attain the desired oxidation levels but generally achieved the gold recovery targets. Phase II column leach test have therefore exceeded the expectations derived from recovery v oxidation curve. The test results also showed some scatter in the data that was difficult to explain.
Further analysis of the data from Phase II showed that the discrepancy stemmed from the fact that the recovery v oxidation curve was derived from sulfide concentrate oxidation tests, which essentially started from negligible cyanide soluble gold contents. In contrast, the ore samples tested in Phase II had varying levels of cyanide-soluble gold that contributed additional recoveries above those released by the oxidation process. This also explains the scatter in the data as being caused by the variability of the initial cyanide-soluble gold content of the samples.
The recovery versus oxidation plot has been corrected for initial cyanide soluble gold and redrawn in Figure 10-4.
|
113 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-4: Gold Recovery v Sulfide Oxidation Plot Corrected for Initial CN-Soluble Au
Recognition of the effect of initial cyanide-soluble gold has beneficial impacts to operations. It lowers the oxidation targets to achieve the recoveries, thereby lowering soda ash consumption and potentially shortening the oxidation cycle. The same applies to column leach tests that will be performed in parallel with the progression of the heap leaching operations. Cyanide soluble gold will also become an important parameter in optimizing future mine plans.
10.3 | Ore Types and Sampling |
10.3.1 | Hycroft Ore Domains and Ore Types |
The Hycroft orebody has been reported in the past as consisting of five ore domains; Brimstone, Central, Bay, Vortex and Camel.
Hycroft ore has also been classified as oxide, transition and sulfide. The basis of the classification is the degree of solubility of gold in cyanide solutions, defined as the ratio of cyanide soluble gold, AuCN, to total gold by fire assay, AuFA, or AuCN/AuFA. Ores are classified as oxides if AuCN/AuFA ≥ 70%, transition if AuCN/AuFA is between 30% and 70%, and as sulfides if AuCN/AuFA ≤ 30%. This classification is based on the refractoriness of the ore and has no correlation with sulfide-sulfur content, nor with the degree of oxidation of the total sulfur content.
Ore that is mined will be routed as follows:
1. | All oxide ore will be leached directly as run-of-mine ore or crushed to minus ¾ inch, |
2. | All sulfide ore will be crushed to ½ inch, pre-oxidized with soda ash then leached. |
3. | Transition ore may be leached directly as ROM ore or crushed to minus ¾ inch, or crushed to minus ½ inch, pre-oxidized then leached (as a sulfide). |
The choice of process treatment is determined by optimization driven by economics and the capacity of the crushing plant. This includes decisions on whether to crush oxide ore, or to route transition ore to direct leaching or pre-oxidation.
Table 10-2 is a list of oxide and transition ores from the five domains that will be routed to the leach pad as ROM ore or crushed ore for direct leaching. Historical recoveries, leach rates and processing costs are available for these ores.
|
114 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 10-2: List of Domain Ores Routed to Direct Leaching
ROM ID | Heap Leach Method | Pit |
Brimstone Oxide | ROM or ¾” Crush | Brimstone |
Brimstone Transition | ROM or ¾” Crush | Brimstone |
Central Oxide | ROM or ¾” Crush | Center |
Central Transition | ROM or ¾” Crush | Center |
Bay Oxide | ROM or ¾” Crush | Bay |
Bay Transition | ROM or ¾” Crush | Bay |
Vortex Oxide | ROM or ¾” Crush | Vortex |
Vortex Transition | ROM or ¾” Crush | Vortex |
Camel Oxide | ROM or ¾” Crush | Camel |
Camel Transition | ROM or ¾” Crush | Camel |
Table 10-3 below is a list of ores that are routed by mine optimization to pre-oxidation in the presence of soda ash prior to leaching. These ore domains were sampled for testing as described in the next subsection.
Table 10-3: List of Domain Ores Routed to Pre-Oxidation and Leaching
ROM ID | Heap Leach Method | Pit |
Brimstone Sulfide | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Brimstone |
Brimstone Transition | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Brimstone |
Central Sulfide | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Center |
Central Transition | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Center |
Bay Sulfide | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Bay |
Bay Transition | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Bay |
Vortex Sulfide | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Vortex |
Vortex Transition | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Vortex |
Camel Sulfide | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Camel |
Camel Transition | Soda Ash Pre-Ox then Leach | Camel |
10.3.2 | Ore Samples for Metallurgical Testing |
Samples for this phase of heap leach testing were taken from diamond drill cores and surface excavation in the existing open pit. The locations of the samples are shown on a map in Figure 10-5.
Figure 10-6 through Figure 10-11 are north-looking vertical sections of the orebody showing the diamond drill holes in relation to the pit limits and the water table.
|
115 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-5: Location of Sample Sources for Phase 3 Heap Leaching Tests
|
116 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-6: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5522
Figure 10-7: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5523
|
117 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-8: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5524
Figure 10-9: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5525
|
118 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-10: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5526
Figure 10-11: Section Showing Diamond Drill Hole H17D-5527
|
119 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 10-4 is a list of the column leach tests that were started in Phase 3, and the source of the material tested therein. The last few columns in this series are restarts of columns from Phase 2 that did not perform well due to poor oxidation test conditions. Unfortunately, in this round of tests, a couple of deviations from the established testing procedures invalidated the majority of the tests before the deviations were corrected, as will be discussed in more detail later in this section.
Table 10-4: Phase 3 Column Oxidation and Leach Tests
Column | Source |
300 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
301 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
302 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
303 | Central Sulfide Cut 5 6/18/18 Excavation |
304 | Central Sulfide Cut 5 6/18/18 Excavation |
305 | Central Sulfide Cut 5 6/18/18 Excavation |
306 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 6/18/18 Excavation |
307 | Central Sulfide Cut 5 6/18/18 Excavation |
308 | Camel Sulfide Core from Phase 2 |
309 | Camel Sulfide Core from Phase 2 |
310 | Camel Sulfide from DDH 5522-5524 |
311 | Camel Sulfide Core from DDH 5522-5524 |
312 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527 |
313 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527 |
314 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527 |
315 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527 |
316 | Bay Sulfide Stockpile |
317 | Bay Sulfide Stockpile |
318 | Bay Sulfide Stockpile |
319 | Bay Sulfide Stockpile |
320 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
321 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
322 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
323 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation |
324 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation |
325 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation |
326 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation |
327 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation |
328 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation |
329 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation Aver |
330 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation Aver |
331 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation Aver |
332 | Brimstone Sulfide Excavation from Phase 2, Restart |
333 | Camel Sulfide Below the Water Table from Phase 2, Restart |
334 | Camel Sulfide Above the Water Table from Phase 2, Restart |
335 | Bay Sulfide from Phase 2, Restart |
336 | Vortex Sulfide Drill Core from Phase 2, Restart |
337 | Vortex Sulfide from DDH 5526 |
338 | Vortex Sulfide from DDH 5526 |
339 | Vortex Sulfide from DDH 5526 |
|
120 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
10.4 | Comminution Tests |
The Hycroft orebody has been thoroughly characterized for its comminution properties in the previous studies. These include crushing and grinding work indices, JK SimMet parameters A, b and ta, and abrasion indices, which were reported in a previous study [M3, 2016]. Only the crushing work index is relevant in the heap leaching context of this study.
10.4.1 | Crushing Work Index |
Bond’s crushing work index, CWi, was measured for seven samples – five from Vortex, one from Central, and one from Bay. The variability within this dataset is small, with a range of 6.18 to 9.76 kWh/st, standard deviation of 1.25, and a coefficient of variation of 15 %. For the design, the 80th percentile value of 9.3 kWh/st was used.
10.5 | Column Oxidation and Leach Tests |
The oxidation and cyanide leach tests were conducted in plexiglass cylindrical columns that were 1 foot in diameter and 4 feet high. Ore samples were crushed to nominal P100 = 1/2 inch, blended and loaded into the columns.
As established in Phase 2 testing based on preliminary experiments, oxidation and leaching had to be performed in sequence in order to separate cyanide from the carbonate/bicarbonate solutions.
Between the oxidation and leach stages, the columns were rinsed with water followed by lime-saturated water. The objective of the water rinse is to remove as much of sulfate produced and excess carbonate alkalinity as possible from the ore column. Sulfate that remains will react with calcium in the leach solution to precipitate CaSO4, which could form a passivation layer over the solids that are being leached. Bicarbonate has been shown to react with cyanide resulting in high cyanide consumptions. The objective of the lime-water rinse is to neutralize residual bicarbonate after the water rinse. Depending on the efficiency of the water rinse, the lime-saturated rinse may not be required but this will have to be tested to determine the trade-off between the cost of lime-water rinse and cyanide loss.
Oxidation was performed for different periods ranging from 60 days to 180 days, by adding soda ash to the ore column and applying just enough solution to the column to keep the ore wet. This status is maintained to ensure that the interstices in the ore column are filled with oxygen-supplying air and not flooded with solution. A small amount of solution is allowed to drain at the bottom of the column, enough to collect at least 50 ml of sample each day for pH analysis, and to create a weekly composite for sulfate analysis. Oxidation was tracked by the amount of sulfate produced.
Phase 3 also introduced a new step to the procedure and that is to add iron (as ferric chloride) to the oxidation solutions at the start of the tests. This was based on an inference from Phase 2 results that oxidation of sulfides is essentially driven by the ferrous-ferric redox couple, which can be maintained at around pH 10 in a carbonate environment.
For the testing program, the bulk of solution and solids assays were performed by McClelland Laboratories in Reno. Some chemical analyses were conducted in-house (Hycroft Laboratory) for confirmation, control samples and for time-sensitive assays. M3 reviewed the chemical analysis procedures on site and found them to be in accordance with standard analytical practice.
During Phase 3 testing, some of the columns were operated with two deviations from the established procedures: (a) the water rinse was skipped to go directly to the lime-saturate water rinse, and (b) addition of iron, which was supposed to be only done at the start of the test, wash continued throughout the oxidation phase. Consequently, as predicted, the leach recoveries obtained were low, presumably because of the formation of passivating calcium sulfate precipitates. These tests, unfortunately, had to be rejected.
|
121 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The effect of the excess iron is still being assessed. The intent was only to kickstart the reaction, which will then continue to produce enough iron ions to maintain same level in solution. The oxidation reaction produces much more iron ions than can be maintained in solutions such that most of it precipitates as hydroxides and goethite. There is a concern that the continued addition of iron may have introduced too much iron that could increase the formation of passivating iron hydroxides instead of goethite. Samples of the oxidized ore, as well as of the feed and leach tails are being submitted to Hazen Mineralogy for analysis.
Table 10-5 is a list of tests that employed the prescribed rinse procedure. Ten of them have been completed, however three of them, which are restarts of Brimstone, Bay and Vortex from Phase 2, did not have leach tails assays or size distributions. Six tests, three 20-foot columns and three large columns (in the old CIC columns) are still in progress or on hold.
Table 10-5: List of Column Leach Tests with the Prescribed Rinse Procedure
Column | Source | Status |
300 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation | Complete |
331 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation Aver | Complete |
313 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527 | Complete |
327 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation | Complete |
333 | Camel Sulfide Below the Water Table from Phase 2, Restart | Complete |
334 |
Camel Sulfide Above the Water Table from Phase 2, Restart |
Complete |
308 | Camel Sulfide Core from Phase 2, 20’ Columns | In progress |
312 | Brimstone Sulfide from DDH 5527, 20’ Columns | In progress |
328 | Brimstone Sulfide North Ramp Excavation, 20’ Columns | In progress |
316 | Bay Sulfide Stockpile, Large CIC Columns | In progress |
320 | Brimstone Sulfide Cut 2 Excavation, Large CIC Columns | In progress |
324 | Central Sulfide from Shot Knob Excavation, Large CIC Column | In progress |
332 | Brimstone Sulfide Excavation from Phase 2, Restart | No leach tails |
335 | Bay Sulfide from Phase 2, Restart | No leach tails |
336 | Vortex Sulfide Drill Core from Phase 2, Restart | No leach tails |
Figure 10-12 through Figure 10-17 are the oxidation and leach curves for the six column leach tests that have been completed.
Figure 10-12 is the oxidation curve for a sample of Brimstone Cut 2 excavation (Column 300). The oxidation step only achieved a rate of oxidation of 5.5% based on sulfate formation. This was probably due to a lower than desired initial pH being maintained. Despite this, gold and silver recoveries were decent at 47% and 62%, respectively.
Another Brimstone sample excavated from the North Ramp area (Column 331) had better pH control and was able to attain over 12% oxidation. Gold recovery was better at 57%, while silver recovery is lower at 23%. See Figure 10-13.
Column 313 is another Brimstone sample, taken from drill core samples from Phase 2 (Figure 10-14). This column reached 12% oxidation and a gold recovery of 62%.
|
122 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-12: Column 300 Brimstone
Figure 10-13: Column 331 Brimstone North Ramp
Figure 10-14: Brimstone Sulfide Core
Column 327 results, shown in Figure 10-15 below, is a test on another surface excavation sample from the Central domain. Based only on solution assays and feed fire assay, gold recovery is in excess of 80%. However, the back calculated heads deviated too far from the assayed heads. Consequently, gold recovery based on calculated heads was 20 percentage points lower. The size distribution of the tailing sample did not resemble the feed size distribution. Clearly, the tailing sample was not representative of the column.
|
123 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-15: Column 327 Central Sulfide
Columns 333 and 334 (Figure 10-16 and Figure 10-17) were restarts of Camel columns that have been oxidized and leached in Phase 2. Both columns oxidized well and resulted in additional recoveries for both gold and silver. Total gold recoveries obtained were 51 % for Camel below the water table and 72% for Camel above the water table. Table 10-6 is a summary of the test results from the columns covered by the plots above.
Figure 10-16: Column 333 Camel Below the Water Table - Restart
Figure 10-17: Column 334 Camel Above the Water Table Restart
|
124 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 10-6: Summary of Test Results
Column | Domain | Au Heads, opt | AuCN, opt | Oxidation, % | Recovery, % | Total Recovery, % | |||
Assayed | Calc. | Au | Ag | Au | Ag | ||||
300 | Brimstone | 0.013 | 0.016 | 0.003 | 5.5 | 46.6 | 61.6 | ||
331 | Brimstone | 0.014 | 0.010 | 0.005 | 14.7 | 57.4 | 23.1 | ||
313 | Brimstone | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.003 | 11.5 | 61.9 | 29.3 | ||
327 | Central | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.002 | 17.0 | 58-82 | 62.0 | ||
333 | Camel -W | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 13.8 | 32.4 | 56.4 | 51.2 | 70.5 |
334 | Camel +W | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.001 | 17.1 | 62.4 | 55.3 | 72.0 | 69.2 |
Notes: -W = below the water table; +W = above the water table;
Total Recovery applies to Columns 333 & 334 to include recoveries from Phase 2 and Phase 3.
10.5.1 | Leach Recovery as a Function of Oxidation |
The results of the column oxidation followed by leach tests in general support the hypothesis that higher oxidation levels produce better gold and silver recoveries in the subsequent cyanide leach process.
10.5.2 | Measurement of Oxidation |
Determining the degree of oxidation was a challenge during the tests and would be a challenge as well during operations. The 50-ml sample taken every day was not an accurate sample as it represented the bottom portion of the column. The sulfate levels from these samples fluctuated particularly towards the end of the tests, instead of steadily increasing as one might expect if these were representative samples.
Sulfate concentrations probably underestimated the degree of oxidation as sulfate is only one of the oxidation products of sulfur. Thiosulfates and polythionates have been shown to be produced. A portion of the sulfates produced may also have precipitated and therefore remained with the solids even after the rinse.
During operations, the extent of sulfate production can be monitored by sampling at two or more levels in the heap leach lift under pre-oxidation. Instrumentation for oxygen concentration in the gas phase inside the lift are available and can be used, at least initially to ensure heap permeability.
10.6 | Chemistry of Oxidation |
Trona is a naturally occurring evaporite mineral with the chemical formula Na2CO3∙NaHCO3·2H2O. The largest known deposit of trona in the world is found in the Green River formation of Wyoming and Utah. Soda ash is manufactured from trona.
During the atmospheric oxidation process developed by Hycroft, soda ash or trona provides neutralizing capacity for the acid produced when sulfides are oxidized in a slurry. Both the carbonate and bicarbonate species can react with acid, depending on availability and pH. The oxidation and acid neutralization can be represented by the following reactions:
FeS2 + 4 Na2CO3 + 2.5 H2O + 3.75 O2(g) = FeO*OH + 2 Na2SO4 + 4 NaHCO3 | DG° = -357.453 kcal/mol |
FeS2 + 4 NaHCO3 + 3.75 O2(g) = FeO*OH + 2 Na2SO4 + 1.5 H2CO3(a) + 2.5 CO2(g) | DG° = -329.434 kcal/mol |
The oxidation process for sulfide concentrates is conducted at elevated temperatures, but below boiling, to maximize the reaction rate. The reaction may be carried out to neutral pH to minimize lime neutralization requirement prior to
|
125 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
cyanidation, or to the extinction of carbonate and bicarbonate in solution to optimize trona consumption. It is possible to carry out the reaction to very acidic pH but this may lead to the formation of jarosites.
One of the most important features of the oxidation reaction is the absence of a passivating product layer. Sulfur is oxidized through a series of sulfur oxide compound through thiosulfate, polythionates, and others, finally to sulfate. Being in a sodium-based system, the sulfates produced remain in solution instead of being precipitated as calcium sulfate, as may be the case in the Albion process. Consequently, ultra-fine grinding is not required.
Since heap leach operations are conducted at ambient temperatures and with much lower sulfide sulfur concentration, the oxidation reactions are expected to be slower and, consequently, require only air to provide oxygen.
10.6.1 | Role of Fe3+/Fe2+ Couple |
Initially, it was thought that soda ash or trona served purely a neutralizing duty. However, results of exploratory experiments suggested that these reagents may be speeding up the oxidation reaction. Results of the current set of tests indicate that this is the case. Oxidation tests conducted in columns of crushed ore show that the presence of trona or soda ash accelerated the oxidation process at ambient temperatures.
The mechanism proposed for this process involves the catalytic effect of the ferric and ferrous redox couple, where ferric and ferrous ions are stabilized in solution by carbonate. Table 10-7 below is a list of carbonate complexes that have been identified as stable in non-acidic solutions in the presences of high concentrations of carbonate or bicarbonate.
Table 10-7: List of Carbonate Complexes of Iron (Caldeira et al., 2009)
Ferrous Complexes | Ferric Complexes |
FeHCO3+ | Fe(CO3)2- |
FeCO3(aq) | FeCO3+ |
Fe(CO3)22- | |
Fe(OH)CO3- |
Figure 10-18 shows the stability regions of iron species in the presence of carbonate and bicarbonate. A possible redox pair could be Fe(CO3)2- (oxidized species) and Fe(CO3)22- (reduced species) between pH 10 and 11, or between. Fe(CO3)2- (oxidized species) and FeCO3(aq) (reduced species) between pH 7 and 10, as shown by the reactions below:
|
(pH 10 - 11) |
|
(pH 7 – 10) |
|
126 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-18: Eh-pH diagram showing dissolved iron species in the Fe-CO32- system (from Caldeira et al., 2009)
At pHs 11 and higher, iron hydroxides predominate over the carbonates. It was reported that the redox pair of ferrous and ferric hydroxide does not catalyze the oxidation as well as the carbonate forms (Caldeira et al., 2009).
The more commonly known redox pair is Fe(II)/Fe(III) at very acidic pH. Because of the high silver content of the Hycroft ore, working in these acidic regions may result in the formation of jarosites that may tie up silver.
Clearly, the best conditions for the oxidation of Hycroft sulfide and transition ores are at around pH 10 but not to exceed pH 11, in the presence of about 0.1 to 0.2 molar of carbonate or more. These translate to a carbonate alkalinity of 10,000 to 20,000 ppm. Because soda ash is being consumed by the reaction, a target of 60,000 ppm at the initial stages of oxidation was found to work well.
The basic model for Hycroft carbonate assisted pyrite oxidation solution was proposed by Caldeira et al. (2009) and involves a redox system driven at the pyrite face by the ferric/ferrous couple system. The reaction rate would be limited by one of three core factors: 1) ferrous iron solubility in alkaline solution; 2) the carbonate concentration; and 3) the available dissolved oxygen to regenerate ferrous to ferric. Figure 10-19 below is a schematic representation of this mechanism:
|
127 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-19: Mechanism of Pyrite Oxidation Assisted by the Fe3+/Fe2+ Couple (by Caldeira et al., 2009)
The above mechanism supports the findings of trona-assisted oxidation tests, which led to the development of the pre-oxidation process for the heap leaching of gold and silver from sulfide and transition ores (patent pending).
10.7 | Reagent Consumption |
Typical cyanide leach operations require the addition of two chemical agents to produce gold and silver; the pre-oxidation modified leach process in use at Hycroft is dependent on a third reagent that supports sulfide oxidation. In addition to Sodium cyanide and lime, the proposed process must include a carbonate source. Throughout the test program, either trona or soda ash were used as carbonate sources during the pre-oxidation cycle of each test.
10.7.1 | Carbonate Source |
Both trona and soda ash create dual alkaline systems in solution that allow carbonate concentrations to reach over 60,000 ppm. In the Phase 2 column tests trona was used during pre-oxidation to neutralize acid and maintain carbonate concentrations high enough to facilitate oxidation by maintaining iron solubility. During Phase 3 soda ash was used in place of trona.
Soda ash addition was recorded daily to establish consumption. Solution leaving a column was sampled and alkalinity was measured so that the residual soda ash concentration could be calculated and subtracted from the original addition amount in order to calculate actual reagent consumption.
The relationship between trona addition (g) and total alkalinity (ppm) was established in the laboratory such that alkalinity measurements could be converted into trona concentration by the following equation:
[Trona] = Total Alkalinity / 602.59
Where ‘Total Alkalinity’ is the measured value in ppm and is the resultant concentration in grams per liter. The data used to establish this relationship can be seen in Figure 10-20 below. This relationship is consistent for soda ash, although only 67% of the mass of soda ash is required to attain the trona equivalent alkalinity.
|
128 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-20: Trona Addition vs Total Alkalinity
To complete the mass balance for the alkaline species, crystallized reagent must be dissolved from the top of the column as the addition of reagents in the column setting sometimes results in reagent precipitation before the surface of the ore is penetrated. This crystallization is viewed as false consumption that is a byproduct of the solution application methods required to wet a 0.35 ft2 instead of spraying solution over a larger heap leach area (+125,000 ft2) at a greater rate due to depth of material.
After reducing the consumption by recovered reagent it was found that the resultant data set correlated with the following consumption equation:
Soda Ash Consumption = %Sulfide * Extent of Oxidation * 2,000 * 1.57
Trona Consumption = %Sulfide * Extent of Oxidation * 2,000 * 2.34
‘%Sulfide’ is the starting sulfide-sulfur content of the material to be oxidized, ‘Extent of Oxidation’ is the percentage of the sulfide-sulfur that is being oxidized and ‘Soda Ash Consumption’ is in units of pounds per ton of ore. ‘2,000’ is the pounds per short ton conversion and ‘1.57’ and ‘2.34’ are the relationship coefficients developed from completed tests.
After expanding the data set in Phase 3, trona/soda ash consumption equation predictions were found to be slightly greater than the equations developed by past research (AAO). This is because the reagent application is slightly less efficient when the ore is not submerged in a reagent bath and some reagents remain inside the ore column either precipitated or within trapped solution.
Phase 3 and a retrospective on Phase 2 yielded the knowledge that the relationship between oxidation and recovery is dependent on the original conditions of the ore. For ore that begins with a large percentage of cyanide-soluble gold, less oxidation is required to reach the ultimate recovery targets. In Phases 2 and 3, the starting cyanide-soluble gold ratio ranged between 5% - 50% while the starting ratios for AAO were all at or near 0%. To account for this variety in
|
129 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
material, the oxidation vs recovery curve was replotted using a ‘discounted recovery’. The discounted recovery is the total gold recovered minus the gold originally recoverable in the head as defined by the cyanide-soluble gold ratio (AuCN/AuFA). The resultant plot confirmed a relationship between extent of oxidation and increase in cyanide-soluble gold (as defined by actual recovery via cyanidation) as much of the scatter from the original plot was eliminated.
The discovery of this relationship revealed that ‘extent of oxidation’ in the consumption equation is not a static number, rather, it is defined by the starting-cyanide solubility of gold and by the total recovery that is being targeted. These two measured inputs are then converted to an extent of oxidation target, defined by a liberation rate that is derived from the oxidation versus recovery curve.
In general, the LOM average sulfide-sulfur content is 1.92% and the nominal oxidation target is 40% for Camel, Central, Brimstone and Vortex, 31% for Bay. After adjusting for cyanide-soluble data available from the model of the ore body a projected reagent consumption was determined: 14.48 lbs/ton soda ash are required per ton of pre-oxidized ore. This figure accounts for 20% extra consumption in year 1 and 15% extra consumption in years 2 and 3 as the process operating procedure is refined.
An example of how trona consumption was tracked during testing is provided below:
Figure 10-21: Trona Consumption of a 60-day Pre-oxidation Test (Brimstone Drill Composite)
The figure above shows trona consumption tracked for the entirety of column 62’s pre-oxidation cycle. Addition is represented by steep jumps from one day to the next, small decreases in ‘consumption’ over time represent total alkalinity leaving the system as part of regular 50 ml sampling, and the steep decrease in consumption after 60 days of oxidation represents back-calculation of residual trona during rinsing.
As acid is generated by the oxidation reaction, trona/soda ash will be ‘consumed’. This consumption occurs when the carbonate or bicarbonate of trona is converted to bicarbonate or carbon dioxide in order to neutralize the produced acid. Over time carbonate concentrations will need to be replenished, either by the addition of more carbonate containing reagents (soda ash), or by the addition of a hydroxide source (Caustic/Lime) that can convert bicarbonate to carbonate while raising the pH of the solution.
At the conclusion of the Phase 2 test work it was determined that soda ash would serve as a more efficient source of carbonate as it can deliver higher carbonate concentrations than trona and requires less mass to be moved and stored
|
130 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
in order to provide the same total alkalinity. During Phase 3 an identical procedure was performed for each column with soda ash consumption being measured rather than trona. An example from Phase 3 is provided below:
Figure 10-22: Soda Ash Consumption of a 180-day Pre-oxidation Test (Central Excavation)
10.7.2 | Cyanide |
The utilization of sodium cyanide solution to leach pre-oxidized ore is no different than its utilization when leaching ore that has not been pre-treated. The projected consumption for sodium cyanide was generated by an average of the actual consumption across properly executed tests in the program. Tests that were executed before the invention of the 2-step oxidation and leach process were not included, nor were tests where pH control was not maintained for the duration of cyanidation. Residual cyanide in the pregnant solution is not considered as part of consumption as it can be recycled.
For the life of the mine, the average cyanide consumption is projected to be 1.0 lbs/ton according to the test work and the assumption that all cyanide applied to the sulfide heaps will be lost or consumed. This consumption was determined using the 1:1 solution to ore ratio for sulfide leaching and a 1.0 lbs/ton concentration of cyanide solution that was determined through a series of cyanide kinetics tests. Cyanide consumption for oxide heaps is conservatively noted as 1 lbs/ton though historical oxide heap leaching on the site has recorded consumptions of 0.6 lbs/ton or less.
The cyanide kinetics tests were performed on central ore of average grade. Several columns were created from one common bulk sample, which was crushed to P100 = ½” and blended. The columns were operated in parallel and oxidized for 30 days before being rinsed and leached by the same procedure. The intention was to note any difference in leach curves that may have resulted from insufficient cyanide concentration, a brief oxidation cycle was thought to be appropriate for this exercise as lengthy oxidations can yield short recovery curves which are more difficult to compare and more vulnerable to outliers. Cyanide concentrations between 0.5 lbs/ton and 2.0 lbs/ton were compared across the series. After 1 lbs/ton, increasing the concentration of cyanide yielded no significant increases in recovery while concentrations below 1 lbs/ton started to show a decline in silver recovery. The results are displayed below:
|
131 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
|
132 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Sodium cyanide loss has been observed for solution systems that contain high amounts of bicarbonate; while the mechanism is unclear repeatable experiments have consistently shown the incompatibility of trona and sodium cyanide in solution. As a result, process controls have been established to separate carbonate containing solutions from cyanide containing ones. These controls offer the upside that some cyanide may be conserved, and overall consumption reduced; for the purposes of this study the expected effects of these controls is ignored.
Figure 10-23: Cyanide Consumption During Rinse and Leach (Brimstone Drill Composite)
The figure above shows the consumption of cyanide for column test 61. Cyanide is only added to the column at the conclusion of the rinse. The consumption is calculated by taking the difference of the concentration in the barren solution and the pregnant solution.
Sodium cyanide is stabilized by manufacturers through the addition of sodium hydroxide. A common composition for this reagent is a 30% solution of NaCN which will also contain 3% NaOH. Sodium hydroxide is not evaluated as a consumed reagent as it is included in the cost of sodium cyanide. In the occasion that lixiviant with low cyanide concentration is diverted to the pre-oxidation ponds, the residual hydroxide concentration will serve to regenerate carbonate concentrations and thus reduce consumption of the carbonate source reagent.
10.7.3 | Lime |
Lime will be coupled with Sodium cyanide to form the lixiviant solution that will drive metal recovery during cyanidation. Lime acts as a hydroxide source in solution that maintains a high enough solution pH to prevent the loss of cyanide to HCN gassing. Lime will offset any additional acid generated during the leach cycle.
In addition to its role in the lixiviant solution, saturated lime solution will be used as a rinsing agent upon completion of the pre-oxidation cycle. Lime solution will be used to push out and dilute carbonate solutions prior to the addition of cyanide to a panel. This lime solution will be diverted to the carbonate solution ponds where it will serve to regenerate carbonate concentration from bicarbonate that has built up.
The consumption of lime when used for the cyanidation of pre-oxidized ore is considerably lower than when it is used to leach un-pretreated ore. For the life of the mine, the average lime consumption is projected to be 1.26 lbs/ton. This was calculated by a weighted average between the test work values for pre-oxidized ore and historical values for the oxide and transition ores that will not be pre-oxidized.
|
133 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 10-24: Lime Consumption During Rinse and Leach (Brimstone Drill Composite)
The figure above shows the consumption of lime for column test 61. The majority of lime addition/consumption is done during the rinse stage of the process. After cyanidation has commenced, additional lime was rarely required for any test as the NaOH provided by cyanide solution was able to neutralize residual acid generation and maintain pH. The complete reagent consumption of column 61 is illustrated below in Figure 10-25.
Figure 10-25: Column 61 Reagent Consumption (Brimstone Drill Composite)
10.8 | Metallurgical Parameters for Process Design Criteria and Financial Analysis |
Metallurgical testing is ongoing. Based on the results available so far, the projected recoveries have not changed much from the Phase 2 testing. Table 10-8 is a summary of the operating parameters and metal recoveries proposed for heap leach modelling to develop a metal production schedule.
From the overall trend observed so far in the test results, it appears that gold recoveries of 70% are possible for all the domains if the conditions are right. It is recommended that testing be continued using optimal conditions to provide
|
134 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
experimental support for this recovery target. These optimal conditions include soda ash dosage, crush size, oxidation time, maintaining moist conditions during oxidation and ensuring access to air. During operations, testing of ore is likewise recommended to fine tune the conditions to be used in the heap. The duration of the oxidation cycle is variable and dependent on parameters found in the head assay.
Table 10-8: Operating Parameters and Expected Recoveries for Heap Leaching
Domain |
Nominal* Target
Oxidation, % |
CN- Leach
Time, days |
Au Recovery,
% |
Ag Recovery,
% |
Northwest (Bay) | 31 | 60 | 55 | 55 |
West (Central) | 40 | 60 | 70 | 70 |
Southwest (Camel) Above Water Table | 40 | 60 | 70 | 70 |
Southwest (Camel) Below Water Table | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
Brimstone | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
Vortex | 40 | 60 | 65 | 70 |
*Oxidation targets will vary depending on AuCN/AuFA
Maximum recoveries can be attained if the correct operating conditions are observed, including the following:
1. | It is essential that pH be maintained above 9.5 during the oxidation process but not higher than 11. This ensures that the catalytic action of the ferrous-ferric carbonate redox pair is prevailing. |
2. | The total carbonate alkalinity must be maintained at a minimum of 20,000 ppm, preferably up to 60,000 ppm to stabilize enough iron in solution. |
3. | During oxidation, the ore must be maintained wet because the catalytic oxidation reaction involves dissolved iron species. |
4. | However, the heap must not be saturated with solution to allow oxygen to migrate to the oxidation sites. Oxygen regenerates Fe(II) carbonate to Fe(III) carbonate. |
5. | When the desired oxidation level is attained, excess carbonate and bicarbonate must be rinsed out of the heap. This may be followed by a lime water rinse to neutralize any residual carbonate. This step is crucial to minimize cyanide consumption during the leach stage. |
Maintaining permeability in the heap is important during both oxidation and leach stage.
10.9 | Metallurgical Testing In Progress |
As mentioned earlier, three 20-ft columns and three large-scale columns using the old carbon columns (CIC) are in progress. Also, tails assays are pending for three of the columns that were not included in this report. At the conclusion of these tests and data analyses, M3 will prepare a technical memorandum, which will serve as an addendum to this Technical Report Summary.
|
135 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
11 | Mineral Resource Estimates |
HMC retained SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. to complete a mineral resource estimate for the Hycroft Project (the Project, or Hycroft). This Technical Report Summary provides a mineral resource estimate and classification of resources reported in accordance with the SEC New Mining Rules. SRK worked with Hycroft to construct updated 3-D wireframes for alteration and oxidation zones using Leapfrog Geo software. Estimation of gold, silver, sulfide sulfur, and rock hardness in a 3-D block model was completed by Tim Carew, P. Geo., of SRK, with GEMS software.
The methods and results of resource estimation are reported below and correspond to the final version of the SRK 3-D block model, <HY20190617.bmf>. Updated Measured and Indicated classification was provided to append to the existing block model, in < Hycroft_Classification_ToHycroft_011020.csv>.
The estimates of Mineral Resources may be materially affected if mining, metallurgical, or infrastructure factors change from those currently assumed at Hycroft. Estimates of inferred mineral resources have significant geological uncertainty and it should not be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will be converted to the measured or indicated categories. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not meet the threshold for reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves.
11.1 | Block Model Dimensions |
A regular block model was defined in GEMS to cover the volume of interest, with no rotation applied. A regular block model in GEMS has a single material type per block, and sub-blocking is not utilized. Relative to the previous model, the framework was extended to the west to include the Crofoot leach pad. A block size of 40x40x40 ft was selected based on drill hole spacing and proposed bench height.
11.1.1 | Block Model Geometry |
The block model geometry is summarized in Table 11-1.
Table 11-1: Block Model Geometry – Coordinates in Hycroft Mine Grid, feet
Minimum | Maximum | # Blocks | Block Size | |
Easting | 13000 | 26000 | 325 | 40 |
Northing | 35440 | 54800 | 484 | 40 |
Elevation | 2200 | 6600 | 110 | 40 |
Source: SRK, 2018
11.2 | Data Collection |
Data sets used in the Mineral Resource estimation include RC, core, and Sonic drill hole data, topographic surface data, and material density data.
11.2.1 | Drilling Data |
SRK’s collar table for modeling includes 5,501 drill holes, with a total of 2,482,722 drilled feet, and average depth of 455 feet. Of these, 5,257 drill holes are in the model domain and were considered for resource estimation. The drill holes in the model domain have 2,351,634.1 total feet drilled, and average depth of 451 feet. About 1,970 of these drill holes were completed by HMC. The average total depth of this group is 720 feet. SRK’s downhole survey dataset for modeling includes all 5,501 drill holes in the collar table. SRK appended available data to the collar and survey tables initially provided by HMC, during the process of assay data compilation.
|
136 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
11.2.2 | Topographic Data |
The most recent aerial survey was completed by Aero-graphics Geospatial Services of Salt Lake City, Utah in August 2015, and has been used as the base topography. The wire-frame triangulation surface has been updated by HRDI survey staff to reflect mining through the end of July 2015, based on actual mining surveys. The surface, “2015_topo.00t”, has been used to define the air/rock interface in the block model.
Note that the tonnages and grades reported in the Resource Statement in Section 14.10 have been adjusted for material mined up to the end of June, 2019, based on mining surveys provided by HMC.
11.2.3 | Tonnage Factor Density |
HMC provided the available density data in <Master Density 2010.xlsx>. The file includes one tab with raw density data for 884 samples by Sample ID, lithology, and alteration, and a tab with average density values summarized by material type. Available data included bulk density values collected during mining, in addition to data from core sample testing. Laboratory values reported are Specific Gravity, in grams per cubic centimeter. Calculated tonnage factors, as cubic feet per ton, were also included in the dataset. SRK saved a copy of the raw data as a CSV file to import to modeling software, and added a field for drill hole ID.
Backfill, alluvium and the sulfide stockpiles have lower density than undisturbed rock. In the volcanic bedrock, alteration overprint is the main control on density. Tonnage factors were inverted to generate density values in tons per cubic foot. These density values were assigned to the model blocks by material type. Table 11-2 lists all density values used for estimation.
Table 11-2: Hycroft Tonnage Factors
Geologic Zone |
Tonnage Factor
(ft3/ton) |
Density (ton/ft3) |
Alluvium | 18.00 | 0.0556 |
Backfill or Dump | 20.00 | 0.0500 |
Acid Leach Alteration | 14.90 | 0.0671 |
Sulfide Stockpiles | 18.80 | 0.0550 |
Silicic Alteration | 12.74 | 0.0785 |
Propylitic Alteration | 14.43 | 0.0693 |
Argillic Alteration | 15.34 | 0.0652 |
Unaltered/Undefined/All Other Geologic Zones | 14.25 | 0.0702 |
11.3 | Geologic Models |
The geological framework for SRK’s resource estimate was generated by Hycroft and SRK geologists. Modeled faults and lithology were adopted from HMC by SRK. Alteration and extent of oxidation were modeled by SRK, and include interpretations provided by HMC.
11.3.1 | Structural Model |
There are 27 modeled faults in the Hycroft model area. Some of them offset lithology or act as barriers, and some control mineralization as conduits for hydrothermal fluids. SRK adopted the Hycroft-modeled faults to use as the structural framework for the geological model and resource estimate.
|
137 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
11.3.2 | Lithology and Formation Model |
The Hycroft deposit is hosted in Tertiary-age volcanic units that are in fault contact at depth with Jurassic metasediments of the Auld Lang Syne (ALS) Formation. Quaternary alluvium and fill conceal a large portion of the deposit. The logged and modeled formations in the Hycroft deposit areas are listed in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3: Logged and Modeled Formation Codes
forma | Formation | Model |
Dmp | Dump | Fill |
Qal | Alluvium | Qal |
Qls | Lacustrine Sediments | |
Tal | Older alluvium | |
Tc | Camel conglomerate | Tcm |
Tch | Camel | |
Tcp | Camel | |
Tsg | Sulfur Group | Tsg |
Td | Dacite (Kamma age) | -- |
Tk | Kamma volcanics | Tk |
Vein | -- | |
Ja | Auld Lang Syne Formation | ALS |
Source: SRK, 2017
Hycroft’s lithology and formation model includes the units in the last column of Table 11-3 except for Fill, which was coded separately. Formation solids are bound and offset by the following faults:
· | Break | |
· | Camel | |
· | Central | |
· | Cliff | |
· | East | |
· | Hades | |
· | Ramp | |
· | Range |
SRK adopted the modeled formation and lithology solids for resource estimation. Generally, the fault and stratigraphic contacts compare well to drill hole data. SRK noted an east-dipping trend in the Central and Camel deposit areas, and a barren zone between upper and lower deposits in this area. The barren assay intervals coincided with logged lacustrine sediments rich in clay of the Tsg unit. SRK added a mineralization domain boundary along the barren, clay-rich zone, and adopted the sedimentary bedding geometry to guide interpolation.
11.3.3 | Alteration Model |
Hycroft provided the following alteration solids:
· | Acid Leach | |
· | Argillic | |
· | Propylitic | |
· | Silicic |
|
138 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Hycroft alteration solids generally honored drill hole contacts, and were based on east-west cross sections on 175-foot spacing. Consequently, the boundaries were coarse between sections, and some of the interpreted contacts on the margins of the model area were inconsistent. SRK re-interpreted alteration and rebuilt alteration wireframes. SRK used Leapfrog 3-D software to model alteration solids based on available drill hole data. The resulting solids were verified against the original solids, where available, and compared to logged drill hole lithology. The new modeled alteration solids generally honor the drill hole data and include consistent anisotropy in the interpreted boundaries. The resulting meshes are valid solids that were used for coding and ultimately density, metal grade and sulfur estimation. The new SRK alteration model did not depart dramatically from the Hycroft alteration model, and will therefore result in similar material quantities compared to the previous model. The areas with different modeled alteration have low drill hole density, and therefore higher uncertainty in material type. Pit slope parameters may differ in future pit designs if there are differences in the extent of silicic and argillic alteration.
11.3.4 | Sulfide and Oxidation Model |
Hycroft provided an interpreted upper extent of sulfide as a surface generated from east-west cross sections on 100-foot spaced northings, <sulf_ew100_final.00t>. Rather than geological parameters, the interpretation for this boundary was based on the ratio of cyanide-soluble and fire assay gold (Au CN:FA) in assay samples. Sulfide material has Au CN:FA equal to or less than 0.3. In mineralized areas, the ratio approach is valid to define metallurgical material types. However, where gold values are near or below method detection limits and ratio values are invalid, Hycroft’s previous interpreted surface was not constrained by any material properties or logged geologic data.
SRK considered this modeled boundary when refining the interpretation to define metallurgical material types. However, SRK’s metallurgical material boundary differs locally from that generated by Hycroft. SRK considered logged mineralogy and intensity of sulfide mineralization and later oxidation when interpreting the metallurgical material boundary in areas without Au CN:FA values. SRK’s ppm assay database provided higher resolution in low grade areas. Samples with at least 0.010 ppm (0.000292 opt) fire assay gold had valid Au CN:FA values applied to modeling.
SRK added a calculated field to the assay table for Au CN:FA values, to use for material type modeling based on gold leachability. The samples with CN:FA > 1 can be attributed to analytical uncertainty in most cases. Based on the assay data and calculated ratio values, a material type category was assigned to each sample interval, according to Table 11-4. The ppm assay dataset has valid ratio values for 196,109 of 441,380 samples (44.4%) with paired gold values. The samples that have fire assay gold values below or near the method detection limit constitute 38.4% of the intervals with paired values. The majority of these are from values reported at <0.001, 0.001, or 0.002 opt; those reported in ppm have gold fire assay values less than the lower MDL. The ppm dataset maximized the number of samples with valid ratio values.
|
139 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-4: SRK Metallurgical Material Types
AuRecoveryType | Explanation |
BDL | One or both Au values below method detection limit |
NoData | One or both Au values missing data, null or noted in database as -9 |
Zero | One or both Au values = 0 |
1xMDL | Fire assay = 0.001, analytical uncertainty too high for meaningful ratio |
2xMDL | Fire assay = 0.002, analytical uncertainty too high for meaningful ratio |
HighLeach | Au CN:FA >= 0.70 |
Transition | Au CN:FA between 0.30 and 0.70 |
Refractory | Au CN:FA <= 0.30 |
Source: SRK, 2017
Using implicit modeling software, boundaries between high-leach, transition, and refractory material were generated. Hycroft’s top of sulfide surface was applied to assign high-leach above and refractory below as defaults. The interpreted sulfide surface was especially helpful in areas of low gold grades that lacked valid ratio values. Then, material types in drill holes were used to generate boundaries of high-leach, transition, and refractory zones with greater resolution than the initial assignment. With this approach, the interpreted sulfide boundary was reflected in the model, and drill hole data was honored locally. The modeled high-leach and transition material is mostly shallow, and the modeled volumes are mostly above or coincident with Hycroft’s interpreted top of sulfide surface. Some deep material in the East Fault zone has Au ratio values in the high leach or transition ranges; however, most of the material at depth is unoxidized, as defined by ratio values and logged sulfides.
11.3.5 | Grade Domains |
Grade shells were used to separate populations of grade values and spatially constrain estimated values. All blocks received estimated values for gold, total silver and cyanide silver, if the drill hole data were sufficient. Blocks inside the respective grade shells were estimated with composites inside; likewise, blocks outside the grade shells were estimated with composites outside. This approach was used for total gold, total silver, and cyanide-soluble silver estimation. For each element, assay values were capped with generalized values, then composited to 20 ft lengths. The composited values were used to generate meshes around intervals that exceed the respective grade threshold. Selected faults were applied as hard domain boundaries to segregate composites. Anisotropy parallel to bedding or the East Fault was applied by domain. Except for the mineralization in the East Fault Zone, the anisotropy of the grade shells was generally flat, and approximately equal in the X and Y directions. Anisotropy in the East Fault Zone follows the dip of the fault and rake of mineralization and has a steeper dip than the other estimation domains.
Gold grade shells at 0.070 ppm were built for all areas of the model. The gold threshold of 0.070 ppm, equivalent to 0.002 opt, is the lowest value that is supported by the older assay data reported to 0.001 ounces per ton. This gold value is essentially equivalent to the current economic cut-off grade for Hycroft leach ore, 0.073 ppm (0.002 opt). Although the grade shell threshold is limited by analytical data, some areas are defined by data with higher resolution.
In the Central deposit, within the SW Upper domain, there is a group of samples with high gold values that were initially targeted for capping. However, in the opinion of the QP, the gold values in these samples appear geologically supported, and capping these grades would be overly conservative. SRK built grade shells at a 1ppm threshold in this domain to apply the reported values while limiting their influence on nearby interpolated values.
Compared to gold grade shells, the extent of silver grade shells is small. This is due to a lack of available data in older drill holes. For all domains, silver grade shells were built at a 10-ppm threshold using total silver (AgFA) data. Some domains have sparse silver data, and a combination of cyanide-soluble and total values. AgCN grade shells were built for the model areas west of the Break Fault, where the most cyanide-soluble silver values occur without total silver values.
The economic cut-off grade for silver in heap leach ore is 19.429 ppm (0.567 opt). Relatively little of the resource is carried by silver alone. However, the gold equivalent grade includes the contribution of silver to the block value. Silver values are highest in the Vortex deposit at depth, and can make blocks economically viable despite gold grades below cut-off.
Hycroft and SRK identified an opportunity in areas with assays reported in ppm to apply grade shells at a lower threshold in an additional estimation step. This approach yielded less dilution in estimated grades immediately outside of the 0.070 ppm grade shells. The assay data reported in ppm units has more resolution at low values than the opt data. To maximize the value of blocks with ppm data, additional grade shells at 0.050 ppm (0.001 opt) were built using only data reported in ppm. These additional grade shells were limited to areas with relatively recent drilling, and were relevant to the south deposit areas, particularly at depth. Generally, these grade shells form a rind on the other set.
|
140 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Blocks inside the 0.050 ppm grade shell and outside the 0.070 ppm grade shell were estimated for gold, only with assays reported in ppm. The additional grade shells separate the assay populations further, and constrain estimated values in space.
Without the secondary shell, estimated grades would be diluted by low values and/ or lack of drilling support outside the main grade shell. The secondary shell threshold is ten times the method detection limit of 0.005 ppm. For reported values lower than ten times MDL, the inherent analytical uncertainty becomes proportionally larger, and results in less accuracy of reported values. The threshold of 0.050 ppm is the lowest value supported by the existing dataset reported to 0.005 ppm.
11.3.6 | Geo-metallurgical Domains |
A geo-metallurgical model was generated to support mine planning and operations. Considerations for defining geo-metallurgical domains included gold to silver ratio, alteration, oxidation, depth to water table, and sulfide mineralogy and abundance. The domains are based on the known alteration and mineralogy in the deposit areas and defined by major faults.
11.4 | Assay Capping and Compositing |
Assay values were capped prior to compositing, as described below.
11.4.1 | Capping |
A capping analysis was conducted on gold and silver assay values by domain prior to compositing to determine suitable capping values to minimize the effect of outlier values. The analysis was based on a ‘metal-at-risk’ approach, in conjunction with examination of log probability plots of the domain distributions that identifies breaks in the distribution corresponding to high-grade outlier populations. The metal-at-risk approach compares the gold metal contribution of each sample (ratio of length*grade of sample to the sum of those products for all samples) to its tonnage contribution (ratio of sample length to total length of sample), starting from the highest-grade sample, as illustrated in Figure 11-1. The graph plots the ratio of %contribution to metal and %contribution to tonnage of samples as a function of their grade. In this case (silver samples in the Kamma Volcanics of the Brim Vortex domain) it shows that the highest-grade sample (22200 PPM) contributes ≈ 270 times more to the metal than tonnage. In terms of risk, it is generally accepted that the metal contribution of a sample should not be more than 10 times its tonnage contribution. At the 10:1 ratio threshold, the analysis suggests using a capping value of ≈ 830 PPM for silver in this domain/lithology.
|
141 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-1: Metal%-Ton% Ratio - Brim Vortex Kamma Lithology, Ag Fire Assay
|
142 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Based on the capping analysis, the capping thresholds for gold and silver are summarized in Table 11-5 and Table 11-6.
Table 11-5: Gold Assay Capping Analysis Results
Source: SRK, 2018
Table 11-6: Silver Assay Capping Analysis Summary
Source: SRK, 2018
11.4.2 | Compositing |
The capped assay data for fire assay gold and silver was composited as 20 ft equal length composites starting at the drill hole collar, and broken at the corresponding gold and silver grade shell contacts. Any short residual intervals created in this process were merged into the previous interval. Composite intervals external to the grade shells were assigned a background rock type for grade estimation purposes.
11.5 | Variogram Analysis and Modeling |
The spatial continuity of composites within the grade shell domains (and external to the grade shells) was investigated through variographic analysis using the SAGE 2001 variography package. Down-the-hole correlograms were calculated to determine appropriate nugget values, in addition to 3D directional correlograms for use in variogram modeling. The correlogram measures the correlation coefficient between two sets of data, comprising values at the heads and values at the tails of vectors with similar direction and magnitude, and has been found to provide a stable estimate of spatial continuity. For ease of modelling, the correlogram value is subtracted from one and is presented in a similar graphical form to the variogram. In this report the correlograms presented this way are referred to as variograms.
11.5.1 | Variography Parameters |
Variogram parameters for gold and silver composites within grade shells are tabulated in Table 11-7.
|
143 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-7: Variogram Parameters by Grade Shell
Source: SRK, 2018
11.6 | Estimation Methodology |
Block grades were estimated by domain (grade shell) for fire assay gold (AuFaPPM) and silver (AgFaPPM), cyanide soluble silver (AgCnPPM), cyanide soluble gold to fire assay gold ratio (AuCnFAR), sulfide sulfur percentage (S), and hardness, using either Ordinary Kriging (OK) or Inverse Distance Cubed (ID3). The interpolation process utilized 20ft composites tagged with corresponding material types to enable the use of either hard boundaries, to prevent smearing across boundaries, or soft boundaries that allow the influence of some composites external to the grade shell to be used within a certain tolerance. The interpolations were done in three passes, with progressively larger search distances and progressively relaxed requirements in terms of minimum number of samples and maximum number of samples per drill hole, and with protection of blocks estimated in earlier passes.
11.6.1 | In Situ Material |
Gold fire assay (AuFA) estimates were interpolated by grade domain using OK and with matching of block domain coding with composite domain coding, i.e. utilizing hard boundaries. As described in Section 11.3.5, grade shells at a threshold of 0.050 ppm were developed in addition to the primary 0.070 ppm grade shells. These shells generally form a rind on the other set and were limited to areas with relatively recent drilling in the south deposit areas, particularly at depth. Composites used for estimation of these blocks were restricted to those with data assayed in ppm.
Cyanide soluble gold (AuCN) estimates were developed by first estimating the gold cyanide/fire assay ratio (AuCNFAR) block values and then calculating the corresponding AuCN block values by manipulation. Ratio estimates by grade domain were interpolated using the AuFA interpolation schema.
Silver fire assay (AgFA) and silver cyanide soluble (AgCN) estimates were interpolated using OK for the Brim-Vortex and Background (external to grade shells) domains, and ID3 for other domains. Hard boundaries were used between individual domains defined by the grade shells, but a ‘soft’ boundary approach was used between the grade shell domains and the domain defined by the background (external to the grade shells) data. The approach was based on comparison of modeled grades with available production (blasthole) data, particularly in areas where drill holes had not been sampled for silver, which restricted the continuity of the primary silver grade shells. When interpolating blocks in the background domain the interpolation allows the use of composites from adjacent primary grade domains, but adjusts the apparent distance to the sample (and hence the influence of the sample) by a factor between 0 (no
|
144 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
influence) and 1 (full influence). A suitable factor for this purpose was selected by comparing estimates based on iterative variation of the factor, to block estimates based on production data.
Gold equivalent (AuEQ) block values were calculated from AuFA and AgFA block estimates by block manipulation using the ratio of corresponding metal prices:
AuEQ = AuFA + AgFA x (Gold Price/Silver Price)
Sulfide sulfur (LECO%) block estimates were interpolated by alteration and grade shell domain, using ID3 and 20ft composites generated by intersection with the grade domain grade shells and back-tagged by alteration domain to allow hard boundaries to be used between alteration domains.
Hardness block estimates were interpolated using nearest Neighbor (NN) interpolation and 20ft composites based on drill hole intersections with the 3D alteration solids used to code the Alteration model. Composites falling inside these solids were tagged with the corresponding alteration code and hard boundaries between alteration domains was used, with an un-rotated anisotropic search ellipsoid of 400ft x 400ft x 100ft.
The main interpolation parameters are for gold, silver and sulfide sulfur are tabulated in Table 11-8 to Table 11-10, and the gold search parameters (Pass 1) are illustrated in Figure 11-2.
Table 11-8: Gold Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell
Source: SRK, 2018
|
145 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-9: Silver Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell
Source: SRK, 2018
Table 11-10: Sulfide Interpolation Parameters by Grade Shell
Source: SRK, 2018
|
146 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-2: Gold Search Ellipses (Pass 1)
11.6.2 | Fill Material |
Block grades in fill material were estimated using the available drill hole data from holes drilled through volumes of fill material, either as the upper section of deeper holes into in-situ material or as specific fill sampling holes. These holes were sampled and assayed for AuFA, AgFA and AgCN, and were identified in the drill hole database. Assay data was composited as 40ft bench composites, and grades were assigned as NN estimates, using an un-rotated anisotropic search ellipse of 120ft x 120ft x 20ft (single bench in the vertical axis).
11.6.3 | Sulfide Stockpile Material |
Stockpile (fill) volumes were modeled as 3D shapes by Hycroft staff from surveyed mining extents and bedrock contacts in sonic drillholes, below current topography. SRK verified the fill volumes relative to the 2015 (current) topographic surface and the mining extents surface, both used for the 2018 resource estimate. Visual examination in section confirmed that the Hycroft fill volumes were consistent with the 2015 topographic and mining extents surfaces, as illustrated in Figure 11-3, which illustrates a sectional view on Section 40250N.
All material identified as fill in the 2018 resource model was modeled as generic fill (rock type 802). At the request of Hycroft, fill volumes identified as sulfide stockpiles were modeled with a unique rock type (801) for this update. In some areas the modeled stockpiles rest on underlying generic fill, as further illustrated in Figure 11-3, with blocks on the contacts being coded on a majority percentage basis. Note that rock types 803 and 804 as illustrated refer to alluvium and in-situ material respectively. Fill blocks were assigned a default density of 0.055 ton/ft3 (18.18 ft3/ton).
|
147 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Source: SRK, 2019
Figure 11-3: Fill and Stockpile Coding – Section 40250N (Looking North)
The sulfide stockpile volumes have been defined since the 2018 block model estimation. Only these volumes have updated grade estimates, while the generic fill and in-situ material grade estimates are not changed from the previous model.
11.6.3.1 | Database |
Data used to update the mineral resource in 2019 were provided by Hycroft as CSV files (collar, survey and assay data for drill holes) and DXF files (sulfide stockpile and 2014 and 2015 generic fill volumes). The drill hole database contains 56 Sonic drillholes drilled in 2018 to sample sulfide stockpiles, ranging in depth from 11 ft to 143 ft, with a total length of 4,865 ft. All holes were drilled vertically.
11.6.3.2 | Exploratory Data Analysis |
Bearing in mind the nature of drillhole samples from stockpiles that have been built up over time from several locations, the EDA is restricted to a summary by stockpile area of the assay statistics for total gold (AUFA) and silver AGFA), and cyanide-soluble gold (AUCN) and silver (AGCN), as tabulated in Table 11-11 through Table 11-14.
Table 11-11: Summary Assay Statistics – AUFA (OPT)
Area | Count | Min | Max | Mean | Total | StDev | CV |
Bay (06, 01) | 98 | 0.000 | 0.043 | 0.016 | 1.561 | 0.011 | 0.69 |
Brimstone (02) | 139 | 0.000 | 0.024 | 0.005 | 0.672 | 0.005 | 0.93 |
Central (03) | 122 | 0.000 | 0.018 | 0.009 | 1.125 | 0.003 | 0.30 |
Crusher (04) | 70 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.013 | 0.887 | 0.008 | 0.66 |
Leach Pad | 22 | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.005 | 0.120 | 0.003 | 0.52 |
North Bay (05) | 37 | 0.002 | 0.025 | 0.014 | 0.501 | 0.006 | 0.46 |
Source: SRK, 2019
Table 11-12: Summary Assay Statistics – AUCN (OPT)
Area | Count | Min | Max | Mean | Total | StDev | CV |
Bay (06, 01) | 98 | 0.000 | 0.027 | 0.008 | 0.778 | 0.005 | 0.68 |
Brimstone (02) | 139 | 0.000 | 0.019 | 0.003 | 0.369 | 0.003 | 1.04 |
Central (03) | 122 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.367 | 0.002 | 0.58 |
Crusher (04) | 70 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.004 | 0.293 | 0.002 | 0.55 |
Leach Pad | 22 | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.053 | 0.003 | 1.02 |
North Bay (05) | 37 | 0.001 | 0.016 | 0.007 | 0.269 | 0.003 | 0.42 |
Source: SRK, 2019
|
148 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-13: Summary Assay Statistics – AGFA (OPT)
Area | Count | Min | Max | Mean | Total | StDev | CV |
Bay (06, 01) | 98 | 0.005 | 0.270 | 0.062 | 6.075 | 0.060 | 0.97 |
Brimstone (02) | 139 | 0.005 | 1.320 | 0.174 | 24.190 | 0.195 | 1.12 |
Central (03) | 122 | 0.020 | 1.010 | 0.186 | 22.750 | 0.103 | 0.55 |
Crusher (04) | 70 | 0.040 | 5.830 | 1.211 | 84.760 | 1.232 | 1.02 |
Leach Pad | 22 | 0.070 | 0.370 | 0.135 | 2.960 | 0.073 | 0.54 |
North Bay (05) | 37 | 0.005 | 0.780 | 0.135 | 4.995 | 0.175 | 1.30 |
Source: SRK, 2019
Table 11-14: Summary Assay Statistics – AGCN (OPT)
Area | Count | Min | Max | Mean | Total | StDev | CV |
Bay (06, 01) | 98 | 0.000 | 0.121 | 0.032 | 3.158 | 0.031 | 0.97 |
Brimstone (02) | 139 | 0.001 | 0.980 | 0.093 | 12.940 | 0.140 | 1.51 |
Central (03) | 122 | 0.003 | 0.863 | 0.091 | 11.090 | 0.085 | 0.94 |
Crusher (04) | 70 | 0.022 | 3.249 | 0.671 | 46.940 | 0.581 | 0.87 |
Leach Pad | 22 | 0.019 | 0.201 | 0.068 | 1.485 | 0.046 | 0.69 |
North Bay (05) | 37 | 0.004 | 0.219 | 0.053 | 1.974 | 0.041 | 0.76 |
Source: SRK, 2019
11.6.3.3 | Capping Analysis and Capping |
Given that the Sonic drillhole sample assays do not represent in-situ grade distributions/domains, the erratic distribution of materials in the stockpiles, and the overall low coefficients of variation (CV), capping of values was not considered to be appropriate prior to compositing.
11.6.3.4 | Compositing |
As implemented in the 2018 resource model, un-capped assay values in PPM were composited into 40 ft bench composites for stockpile fill grade estimation purposes. The benches were defined to correspond to the block model levels.
11.6.3.5 | Stockpile Block Grade Estimation |
Updated block grade estimation was restricted to the stockpile volumes provided by Hycroft (rock code 801), with fill block grade values for the generic fill blocks (rock code 802) being retained from the 2018 resource model, where estimated. Bench composites falling within the stockpile volumes were back-tagged with the stockpile code (801) and code-matching was used in estimation to implement a hard boundary.
Stockpile fill block grades for AUFA, AUCN, AGFA, AGCN and Sulfide Sulfur % were estimated by nearest-neighbor estimation, using a search radius of 120 by 120 by 20 ft, following the procedure used for the 2018 resource modelling. The vertical range of 20 ft restricted the extension of bench composite grades to the corresponding bench. Un-estimated blocks for AUFA, AUCN, AGFA and AGCN were assigned the average grade of the estimated blocks by area as a default grade. This approach provides a declustered mean grade for the input sample data (bench composites), which is considered appropriate for un-estimated blocks, and is largely supported by available ore control data, as tabulated in Table 7. In the opinion of the QP, the Sonic drilling data, comprising sampling of the actual material in place, is more representative compared to ore control data which is compiled from many locations, and subject to possible misclassification/routing of material. Table 7 table shows the block model mean grades (BM) used, and a comparison to the corresponding ore control grades (O/C). Un-estimated blocks for sulfide sulfur (%) were similarly assigned the average grade of the estimated blocks (BM) by area as a default grade, as also tabulated in Table 14-15.
|
149 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
AUFA, AUCN, AGFA and AGCN block grade estimates in PPM were converted to OPT, as separate block model items, by division with a conversion factor of 34.2857.
Table 11-15: Default Grades for Un-estimated Blocks by Area
O/C | BM | O/C | BM | O/C | BM | O/C | BM | BM | |
AuFA | AuFA | AuCN | AuCN | AgFA | AgFA | AgCN | AgCN | Sulfide | |
Area | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (OPT) | (%) |
Bay 06 | 0.031 | 0.011 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.015 | 0.050 | 0.080 | 0.024 | 0.40 |
Bay01 | 0.015 | 0.027 | 0.004 | 0.013 | 0.100 | 0.098 | 0.050 | 0.056 | 0.94 |
Bay 05 | 0.023 | 0.013 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.110 | 0.146 | 0.050 | 0.056 | 1.12 |
Central | 0.009 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.210 | 0.196 | 0.070 | 0.094 | 1.51 |
Crusher | 0.012 | 0.012 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.640 | 1.082 | 0.240 | 0.614 | 3.40 |
Brim | 0.012 | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.880 | 0.177 | 0.200 | 0.091 | 2.75 |
Source: SRK, 2019
11.6.3.6 | Classification |
Based on confidence in the volume surveys for the Crusher, Brimstone and Central sulfide stockpiles, and the availability of ore control (blasthole) data that supports the use of the declustered block grade averages for un-estimated blocks, in the QP’s opinion, these stockpiles are classified as Indicated. In the QP’s opinion, the survey and ore control data for the Bay area stockpiles is not as representative as the Crusher, Brimstone and Central data and these stockpiles are therefore classified as Inferred.
11.6.4 | Missing AuCN values |
Modeled high-leach, transition, and refractory zones were coded to drill holes. Statistics on the distribution of Au CN:FA ratio values were considered, and the mean ratio values were applied to intervals missing valid ratios. The full ratio dataset was composited, and ratios were estimated with fire assay gold to the model blocks. Using the estimated total gold and gold CN:FA ratio values, the block Au CN values were calculated. This approach allows the oxide-sulfide material type in the geological model to be honored in the block ratio values.
11.7 | Model Validation |
Model validation was approached through visual and statistical methods. Visual comparison was done on sections and in plan for each area of the deposit. Statistical comparison was achieved using comparative population statistics and swath plots.
Reconciliation of the model, excluding fill,
to available production data was completed. Material mined by Allied Nevada between 2008 and 2015 was compared to blocks in the
mined volume. Model and production data are summarized in
|
150 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-16. The model compared well to historical production records for total gold ounces. The model has about 5% more tonnage, and about 4% lower gold grade, than the reported production. Reported silver grade was about 7% lower than what was predicted by the model, and resulted in silver ounces produced about 12% less than what was predicted from the block model. The QP’s opinion of the Life-of-Mine reconciliation is that the model agrees well with reported production results.
|
151 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-16: Reconciliation of Block Model to 2008-2015 Production
Data Source | Tonnage | Gold (opt) | Silver (opt) | Gold Ounces | Silver Ounces |
SRK Block Model | 153,263,016 | 0.0115 | 0.3522 | 1,762,525 | 53,979,234 |
Hycroft Ore Control Data | 146,106,426 | 0.0120 | 0.3262 | 1,750,741 | 47,654,393 |
Difference from Model | -4.67% | 4.20% | -7.39% | -0.67% | -11.72% |
11.7.1 | Visual Comparison |
A visual inspection of the model in plan and section confirmed that grades were well correlated between the blocks and the composite data in each area. Example images showing block grades vs composite grades in section are provided below in Figure 11-4 through Figure 11-6.
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-4: 41000N AuFa Block Grades and Composites (Looking North)
Source: SRK, 2018
|
152 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 11-5: 41000N AgFa Block Grades and Composites (Looking North)
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-6: 41000N Sulfide% Block Grades and Composites (Looking North)
11.7.2 | Comparative Statistics |
Statistics by interpolation domain (grade shell) were used to compare the Au and Ag NN (polygonal) and OK and IDW, where applicable, grades against each other. The NN interpolation method provides a declustered representation of the sample grades and therefore, the resulting mean grades of any other method should be similar to the mean grade of the NN estimate at a zero-cutoff grade. For Au, the OK estimates were within acceptable tolerances of the NN; approximately ±3% for each domain. The global mean estimated OK grade at zero cut-off was within ~1% of the NN estimate. For Ag, the OK and IDW estimates were within acceptable tolerances of the NN; approximately ±5% for each domain, with the higher variances corresponding to the poorly sampled Bay and Lewis domains. The global mean estimated grade at zero cut-off was within ~1.2% of the NN estimate. The domain and global comparison between OK, IDW and NN models is shown in Table 11-17 and Table 11-18.
Table 11-17: Model Validation: Comparison of Estimation Methods – Gold
Grade Shell | Mean (PPM) | % Difference | |
AuFA (NN) | AuFa (OK) | (Absolute) | |
SW Upper | 0.234 | 0.241 | 3.0% |
SE Lower | 0.302 | 0.301 | 0.3% |
Lewis | 0.173 | 0.172 | 0.6% |
East Fault | 0.302 | 0.297 | 1.7% |
Brim Vortex | 0.279 | 0.279 | 0.0% |
Bay | 0.218 | 0.222 | 1.8% |
Background | 0.047 | 0.048 | 2.1% |
Global | 0.107 | 0.106 | 0.9% |
Source: SRK 2018 |
|
153 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-18: Model Validation: Comparison of Estimation Methods – Silver
Grade Shell | Mean (PPM) | % Difference | |
AgFA (NN) | AgFa (OK) | (Absolute) | |
SW Upper | 30.261 | 30.098 | 0.5% |
SE Lower | 41.663 | 40.634 | 2.5% |
Lewis | 17.688 | 16.772 | 5.2% |
East Fault | 33.724 | 34.958 | 3.7% |
Brim Vortex | 26.489 | 26.208 | 1.1% |
Bay | 31.83 | 29.92 | 6.0% |
Background | 3.607 | 3.566 | 1.1% |
Global | 4.845 | 4.789 | 1.2% |
Source: SRK 2018 |
11.7.3 | Swath Plots |
A swath plot is a graphical display of the grade distribution derived from a series of bands, or swaths, generated in several directions through the deposit. Using the swath plot, grade variations from the OK and IDW (where applicable) model are compared to the distribution derived from the NN grade model.
On a local scale, the NN model does not provide reliable estimations of grade, but on a much larger scale it represents an unbiased estimation of the grade distribution based on the underlying data. Therefore, if the OK/IDW model is unbiased, the grade trends may show local fluctuations on a swath plot, but the overall trend of the OK/IDW data should be similar to the NN distribution of grade.
Swath plots were generated along east-west and north-south directions, and also for elevation. Swath widths were 200 feet wide for both east-west and north-south orientations, and 80 feet wide in the vertical. Au grades were plotted by OK/IDW (red traces) and NN (blue traces) for all estimated blocks. Example swath plots for the Brimstone Vortex AuFa estimates are shown in Figure 11-7 through Figure 11-9.
Based on the swath plots, it is the QP’s opinion that there is a reasonable correlation between the modeling methods. The degree of smoothing in the OK/IDW model is evident in the peaks and valleys shown in some swath plots; however, this comparison shows close agreement between the OK/IDW and NN models in terms of overall grade distribution as a function of easting, northing, and elevation; especially where there are high tonnages (as shown by the vertical bars on the plots).
|
154 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-7: AuFa Grades by Easting - Brimstone Vortex Domain
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-8: AuFa Grades by Northing - Brimstone Vortex Domain
|
155 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-9: AuFa Grades by Elevation - Brimstone Vortex Domain
11.8 | Resource Classification |
Mineral Resources were classified into Measured, Indicated, and Inferred categories based on the reporting requirements of the New Mining Rules. Initial classification criteria considered a combination of geometric criteria and estimation quality attributes:
· | Measured: blocks require a minimum of three holes located within 145 foot radii, nominally corresponding to a maximum drillhole spacing of 205 feet. For those blocks that satisfied this geometric criteria, the mean distance of the nearest three holes is 123 feet, and the mean number of holes is five. |
· | Indicated: minimum of two drill holes, but within a drill data spacing of 120 to 450 feet depending on domain (see Table 11-19) |
· | Inferred: minimum of one drill hole at a distance greater than 120 to 450 feet from source data, but within the gold grade domain (see Table 11-19) |
The threshold distances for Indicated and Inferred are based on variogram ranges and therefore vary by domain. Classification criteria for Indicated and Inferred in each domain are detailed in Table 11-19.
|
156 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 11-19: Resource Classification Criteria
Distance to Nearest Hole (Feet) | |||
Grade Shell | # Drill holes | 99 - 180 | > 180 |
SW Upper, Lewis, E Fault, Bay, Lewis proximate to E Fault | 2 | Indicated | Inferred |
1 | Inferred | Inferred | |
# Drill holes | 110 - 200 | > 200 | |
SW Lower | 2 | Indicated | Inferred |
1 | Inferred | Inferred | |
# Drill holes | 198 - 360 | > 360 | |
Brim Vortex | 2 | Indicated | Inferred |
1 | Inferred | Inferred | |
# Drill holes | 250 - 450 | > 450 | |
Background, external to grade shells | 2 | Indicated | Inferred |
1 | Inferred | Inferred | |
# Drill holes | 66 - 120 | > 120 | |
SW Upper High Grade | 2 | Indicated | Inferred |
1 | Inferred | Inferred | |
Source: SRK, 2018 |
The block model centroids with the Class item were exported, and imported to Leapfrog 3-D to use as guide points for building solids. The raw classification coding produced small volumes of each material in some areas. These discontinuities were inspected for drilling support and continuity in the surrounding material. Many of the small volumes were omitted from the set of solids generated for model coding. This approach lends geological continuity to each resource class, and considers the mathematical support for estimation in each block.
Solids for Measured and Inferred material were generated for block model coding. Blocks were defaulted to Indicated, then coded with the geological classification solids. The smoothed geological classification is applied to report Mineral Resources, and illustrated on a typical section in Figure 11-10. Search distances, and therefore, classification criteria, vary by domain.
Source: SRK, 2018
Figure 11-10: Classification: 41000N (Looking North) 200 Ft Corridor
|
157 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
11.9 | Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary |
Given that process recoveries and costs in the resource model are grade and/or domain dependent, the application of standard cut-off grades for resource reporting purposes is not feasible. The resources are, therefore, reported with respect to a block Net Smelter Return (NSR) value which is calculated on a block-by-block basis. The resource is also constrained by an optimized (Whittle) resource pit, in order to demonstrate that the defined resources have reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction, a part of the New Mining Rules criteria. All classification categories were considered in the resource pit optimization. The estimation of the NSR values and development of the Whittle resource pit requires assumptions around technical and economic parameters such as process recoveries, mining methods and operating costs that are the responsibility of QP’s for Sections 10, 13, 14 and 18. These parameters are outside the expertise of the QP for this section.
11.9.1 | Resource Pit Optimization (Whittle) Parameters |
The resource pit optimization parameters are tabulated in Table 11-20. These parameters were also used in the calculation of block NSR values for reporting purposes. Backup for cost assumptions can be found in Section 10.
Table 11-20: Resource Pit Optimization (Whittle)/NSR Parameters
|
158 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Oxide | Transitional | Sulfide | |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
Brimstone North | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
Brimstone Main | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
LeachPad | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
Foothills East | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
Vortex | NA | See Section 14.9.1.1 | See Section 14.9.1.1 |
G&A | $/t | $/t | $/t |
ROM / ¾” Crushed / ½” Crushed | $0.65 | $0.65 | $0.65 |
Sustaining Capital | $/t | $/t | $/t |
ROM / ¾” Crushed / ½” Crushed | $0.24 | $0.24 | $0.24 |
ROM Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | ratio_au*69.8% | ratio_au*69.8% | NA |
West (Center) | ratio_au*69.8% | ratio_au*69.8% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | ratio_au*69.8% | ratio_au*69.8% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | ratio_au*56.4% | ratio_au*56.4% | NA |
Brimstone North | ratio_au*76.5% | ratio_au*76.5% | NA |
Brimstone Main | ratio_au*76.5% | ratio_au*76.5% | NA |
LeachPad | ratio_au*76.5% | ratio_au*76.5% | NA |
Foothills East | ratio_au*76.5% | ratio_au*76.5% | NA |
Vortex | ratio_au*76.5% | ratio_au*76.5% | NA |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
West (Center) | 15.00% | 15.00% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
Brimstone North | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Brimstone Main | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
LeachPad | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Foothills East | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Vortex | 21.00% | 21.00% | NA |
3/4" Crushed Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | ratio_au*83.2% | ratio_au*83.2% | NA |
West (Center) | ratio_au*81.9% | ratio_au*81.9% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | ratio_au*81.9% | ratio_au*81.9% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | ratio_au*79.2% | ratio_au*79.2% | NA |
Brimstone North | ratio_au*98.0% | ratio_au*98.0% | NA |
Brimstone Main | ratio_au*98.0% | ratio_au*98.0% | NA |
LeachPad | ratio_au*98.0% | ratio_au*98.0% | NA |
Foothills East | ratio_au*98.0% | ratio_au*98.0% | NA |
Vortex | ratio_au*98.0% | ratio_au*98.0% | NA |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | 25.00% | 25.00% | NA |
West (Center) | 18.00% | 18.00% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Brimstone North | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Brimstone Main | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
LeachPad | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Foothills East | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Vortex | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
1/2" Crushed Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | NA | 55.00% | 55.00% |
West (Center) | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Brimstone North | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Brimstone Main | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
LeachPad | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
|
159 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Oxide | Transitional | Sulfide | |
Foothills East | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Vortex | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | NA | 55.00% | 55.00% |
West (Center) | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Upper (Camel) – Above water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Lower (Camel) – Below water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Brimstone North | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Brimstone Main | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
LeachPad | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Foothills East | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Vortex | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Payable Metal Adjustments | % | % | % |
Melt Loss - Au | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% |
Melt Loss - Ag | 0.20% | 0.20% | 0.20% |
Payable Au | 99.90% | 99.90% | 99.90% |
Payable Ag | 99.00% | 99.00% | 99.00% |
Metal Price | $/oz | $/oz | $/oz |
Resource - Au | $1,400 | $1,400 | $1,400 |
Resource - Ag | $18.00 | $18.00 | $18.00 |
Selling Costs | $/oz | $/oz | $/oz |
Bullion Treatment & Refining ($/oz) | $0.75 | $0.75 | $0.75 |
Royalties | Not Included | Not Included | Not Included |
Source: Hycroft/SRK, 2019
11.10 | Mineral Resource Statement |
The mineral resource statement is presented in accordance with the New Mining Rules, exclusive of Mineral Reserves. A sectional view of blocks above the NSR cutoff is illustrated in Figure 11-11, color coded by gold equivalent grades (OPT).
Table 11-21: Hycroft Heap Leach Mineral Resource Estimate, June 30, 2019 – SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc.
Classification | Material | Tons | Contained Grade | Contained Metal | ||||
(kt) | AuFa OPT | AuCn OPT | AgFa OPT | S% | Au (koz) | Ag (koz) | ||
Oxide | 5,650 | 0.011 | 0.008 | 0.224 | 1.79 | 60 | 1,267 | |
Measured | Transition | 21,746 | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.186 | 1.80 | 232 | 4,038 |
Sulfide | 37,512 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.273 | 1.85 | 356 | 10,248 | |
64,908 | 0.010 | 0.004 | 0.240 | 1.83 | 649 | 15,554 | ||
Oxide | 2,619 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.229 | 1.89 | 17 | 599 | |
Indicated | Transition | 16,293 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.329 | 1.79 | 117 | 5,369 |
Sulfide | 310,102 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.282 | 1.81 | 2,916 | 87,470 | |
329,014 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.284 | 1.81 | 3,050 | 93,438 | ||
Measured | Oxide | 8,268 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.226 | 1.82 | 77 | 1,867 |
and | Transition | 38,039 | 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.247 | 1.80 | 349 | 9,407 |
Indicated | Sulfide | 347,614 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.281 | 1.81 | 3,272 | 97,718 |
393,922 | 0.009 | 0.002 | 0.277 | 1.81 | 3,699 | 108,992 | ||
Oxide | 6,191 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.267 | 1.72 | 44 | 1,651 | |
Transition | 20,148 | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.276 | 1.74 | 156 | 5,570 | |
Inferred | Sulfide | 568,704 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.214 | 1.76 | 5,516 | 121,930 |
Fill | 4,018 | 0.013 | 0.008 | 0.150 | 0.63 | 53 | 603 | |
599,062 | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.217 | 1.76 | 5,769 | 129,754 |
Source: SRK, 2019
· | Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not meet the threshold for reserve modifying factors, such as estimated economic viability, that would allow for conversion to mineral reserves. There is no certainty that any part of the Mineral Resources estimated will be converted into Mineral Reserves; |
|
160 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | Open pit resources stated as contained within a potentially economically minable open pit; pit optimization was based on assumed prices for gold of US$1,400/oz, and for silver of US$18/oz, variable Au and Ag Recoveries based on geo-metallurgical domains, a mining cost of US$1.45/t, variable ore processing costs based on geo-metallurgical domains, and G&A cost of US$0.65/t, and a pit slope of 45 degrees; |
· | Open pit resources are reported based on calculated NSR block values and the cutoff therefore varies from block to block. The NSR incorporates Au and Ag sales costs of US$0.75/oz beyond the costs used for pit optimization; |
· | Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding. |
· | Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves |
Source: SRK, 2019
Figure 11-11: 41000N - Resource Blocks by AuEq Block Grades (OPT) - Looking North
11.10.1 | Mineral Resource Sensitivity |
Given the grade and/or domain dependent nature of the recovery and cost parameters in the resource model, the sensitivity of the resource to these parameters is difficult to quantify. Resource estimates are, however, typically most sensitive to price and this sensitivity can be analyzed in terms of the results of the resource pit for a range of prices. The variation in tonnage and grade for gold price increments of $50/oz is tabulated in Table 11-22. Quantities are reported for material outside the Reserves pit. The resource is relatively insensitive to metal price, in terms of the processing paths defined for this study, and current assumptions on price.
Table 11-22: Whittle Resource Pit - Price Sensitivity
Price | Tons | Au | AUFA | Change | AGFA | AGFA | Change |
($/Oz Au) | (kt) | (OPT) | (koz) | (%) | (OPT) | (koz) | (%) |
1200 | 767,448 | 0.0100 | 7,674 | -5.8% | 0.254 | 194,548 | -4.5% |
1250 | 791,366 | 0.0099 | 7,835 | -3.8% | 0.249 | 197,367 | -3.1% |
1300 | 812,332 | 0.0098 | 7,961 | -2.3% | 0.246 | 199,753 | -2.0% |
1350 | 831,545 | 0.0097 | 8,066 | -1.0% | 0.243 | 201,899 | -0.9% |
1400 | 848,540 | 0.0096 | 8,146 | 0.0% | 0.240 | 203,734 | 0.0% |
1450 | 863,728 | 0.0095 | 8,205 | 0.7% | 0.238 | 205,308 | 0.8% |
1500 | 878,087 | 0.0094 | 8,254 | 1.3% | 0.236 | 206,877 | 1.5% |
1550 | 890,232 | 0.0094 | 8,368 | 2.7% | 0.234 | 208,136 | 2.2% |
1600 | 902,071 | 0.0093 | 8,389 | 3.0% | 0.232 | 209,280 | 2.7% |
Source: SRK, 2019 |
|
161 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
12 | Mineral Reserve Estimates |
The Hycroft Mine is a restart of the historic Hycroft Mine which was profitably mined from 1983 through 2015. Mineral Reserves were estimated by Hycroft. The significant mineralized domains include Bay, Central, Camel, Brimstone, and Vortex. Based on current operating costs, process recoveries, and metal prices, all these domains contribute to the Mineral Reserves as of June 30th, 2019.
Metal prices used for Mineral Reserves are based on consensus, long-term forecasts from banks, financial institutions, and other sources and are below the trailing three-year average selling prices. Hycroft has considered the reported Mineral Resources, dilution factors, production schedules, and economic analysis for conversion of Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves and considers it appropriate. Based on the contribution of silver to the cashflow, Hycroft has elected to include the silver content as Mineral Reserves.
Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves have been calculated on operational economics and estimates for costs for Hycroft. HMC verified the economic pit limits of the mineral reserve estimate using Geovia Whittle® 4.5.5 software. The Hycroft Mineral Reserve Estimates are not materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, political or other relevant issues.
Mineral Reserves at Hycroft have been determined by applying current economic criteria that are valid for the Hycroft mine. These criteria limitations have been applied to the resource model to determine which part of the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource is economically extractable. The reported mineral reserves conform to the New Mining Rules definitions of Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves.
Table 12-1 summarizes the Hycroft reserves as of June 30th, 2019, estimated using a gold price of $1,200 per ounce and silver price of $16.50 per ounce, as well as operating costs and applicable recoveries. These have been fully scheduled in a LOM plan and have been shown to demonstrate viable economic extraction. The reference point for these mineral reserves is ore delivered to the leach pad and does not include reductions attributed to anticipated leach recoveries. The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are exclusive of those Mineral Resources modified to produce these Mineral Reserves.
This is the initial Summary Technical Report reported under the New Mining Rules, and there is no previous year estimate of Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves to compare with the June 30, 2019 estimate.
|
162 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 12-1: Proven & Probable Mineral Reserves – 6/30/2019
Tons | Grades, oz/t | Contained Oz (000s) | |||
(000s) | Au | Ag | Au | Ag | |
Proven (Heap Leach) | |||||
Oxide ROM | 22,476 | 0.009 | 0.230 | 205 | 5,211 |
Transition ROM | 4,095 | 0.008 | 0.190 | 32 | 759 |
Oxide ¾” Crushed | 15,252 | 0.012 | 0.720 | 184 | 10,926 |
Transition ¾” Crushed | 4,399 | 0.005 | 0.310 | 24 | 1,367 |
Transition ½” Crushed | 90,206 | 0.011 | 0.450 | 948 | 40,365 |
Sulfide ½” Crushed | 250,906 | 0.012 | 0.470 | 2,940 | 116,818 |
Total Proven Heap Leach | 387,334 | 0.011 | 0.450 | 4,333 | 175,446 |
Probable (Heap Leach) | |||||
Oxide ROM | 13,145 | 0.005 | 0.230 | 71 | 3,005 |
Transition ROM | 3,660 | 0.005 | 0.140 | 20 | 505 |
Oxide ¾” Crushed | 3,001 | 0.010 | 0.690 | 29 | 2,063 |
Transition ¾” Crushed | 1,304 | 0.004 | 0.490 | 5 | 644 |
Transition ½” Crushed | 52,467 | 0.010 | 0.460 | 504 | 24,043 |
Sulfide ½” Crushed | 663,071 | 0.010 | 0.410 | 6,936 | 272,271 |
Total Probable Heap Leach | 736,648 | 0.010 | 0.410 | 7,565 | 302,531 |
Total Probable Sulfide Stockpile ½” Crushed | 9,079 | 0.011 | 0.380 | 98 | 3,422 |
TOTAL PROVEN & PROBABLE MINERAL RESERVES | 1,133,061 | 0.011 | 0.425 | 11,996 | 481,399 |
Waste | 1,321,853 | ||||
Total Tons | 2,454,914 | ||||
Strip Ratio | 1.17 |
· | Mineral Reserves estimated according to the New Mining Rules definitions. |
· | Mineral Reserves estimated at $1,200/oz Au and $16.50/oz Ag. |
· | Cut-off grades used a Net Smelter Return (NSR) calculation. |
· | Numbers in the table have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimate and may not sum due to rounding. |
Economic pit limits have been determined with Geovia Whittle® 4.5.5 strategic planning software. Geovia Whittle® 4.5.5 uses the Lerchs-Grossman economic algorithm, which is an industry standard method for optimizing open pit resources. Economic phases (pushbacks) have been designed based on the Geovia Whittle® output utilizing Maptek Vulcan® software. Minemax Scheduler Professional 6.2.4® has been used to schedule the phases to develop annual and life of mine plans.
12.1 | Whittle Analysis and Block Value Inputs |
Whittle, a Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm commercial software package, was used to evaluate the Hycroft Mine. Table 12-2 and Table 12-3 define the Whittle parameters and block value inputs used to generate the ultimate pit shell. Costs were generated by Hycroft personnel, metallurgical recoveries were developed by M3 Engineering, and slope inputs supplied by Call and Nicholas and Golder Associates.
A Net Smelter Return (NSR) was generated for each 40 ft x 40 ft x 40 ft block for each of the processing methods available at Hycroft, which are the following:
· | Run-of-Mine (ROM) Heap Leaching of oxide and transitional material; |
|
163 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | ¾” Crushed Heap Leaching of oxide and transitional material; and |
· | ½” Crushed Heap Leaching of transitional and sulfide material. |
The processing method that returned the highest net value was selected. If all processing methods returned a negative value, the block was classified as waste.
Table 12-2: Whittle Input Parameters – Heap Leach
Oxide | Transitional | Sulfide | |
Mining Cost | $/t | $/t | $/t |
Fill | $1.00 | $1.00 | $1.00 |
Alluvium | $1.45 | $1.45 | $1.45 |
Rock | $1.45 | $1.45 | $1.45 |
Incremental mining below 4,660 ft elevation per 40 ft bench | $0.016 | $0.016 | $0.016 |
Process Cost - ROM | $/t | $/t | $/t |
NW (Bay) | $3.27 | $3.75 | NA |
West (Center) | $2.43 | $2.91 | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | $2.49 | $2.84 | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table. | $3.03 | $3.61 | NA |
Brimstone North | $2.65 | $3.14 | NA |
Brimstone Main | $2.65 | $3.14 | NA |
LeachPad | $2.65 | $3.14 | NA |
Foothills East | $2.65 | $3.14 | NA |
Vortex | $2.79 | $3.15 | NA |
Process Cost - 3/4" Crush | $/t | $/t | $/t |
NW (Bay) | $4.70 | $5.19 | NA |
West (Center) | $3.87 | $4.23 | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | $3.79 | $4.04 | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table. | $4.41 | $4.77 | NA |
Brimstone North | $3.90 | $4.50 | NA |
Brimstone Main | $3.90 | $4.50 | NA |
LeachPad | $3.90 | $4.50 | NA |
Foothills East | $3.90 | $4.50 | NA |
Vortex | $4.23 | $4.71 | NA |
Process Cost - 1/2" Crush | $/t | $/t | $/t |
All Domains | NA | $3.46 | $3.46 |
Soda Ash Cost (add to Process Cost) - 1/2" Crush | $/t | $/t | $/t |
All Domains | NA | Table 12-4 | Table 12-4 |
G&A | $/t | $/t | $/t |
ROM | $0.65 | $0.65 | $0.65 |
3/4" Crushed | $0.65 | $0.65 | $0.65 |
1/2" Crushed | $0.65 | $0.65 | $0.65 |
Sustaining Capital | $/t | $/t | $/t |
ROM | $0.24 | $0.24 | $0.24 |
3/4" Crushed | $0.24 | $0.24 | $0.24 |
1/2" Crushed | $0.24 | $0.24 | $0.24 |
Payable Metal Adjustments | % | % | % |
Melt Loss – Au | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
Melt Loss – Ag | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
Payable Au | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.9% |
Payable Ag | 99.0% | 99.0% | 99.0% |
Metal Price | $/oz | $/oz | $/oz |
Reserve – Au | $1,200 | $1,200 | $1,200 |
Reserve – Ag | $16.50 | $16.50 | $16.50 |
Selling Costs | $/oz | $/oz | $/oz |
Bullion Treatment & Refining ($/oz) | $0.75 | $0.75 | $0.75 |
Royalties | NI | NI | NI |
|
164 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Heap leach recoveries utilized in mineral reserve determination vary by redox, domain, and process method. The recoveries utilized in Geovia Whittle® optimization are shown in Table 12-3.
Table 12-3: Recoveries Utilized in Whittle Optimization
Oxide | Transitional | Sulfide | |
ROM Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | ratio_au*0.698 | ratio_au*0.698 | NA |
West (Center) | ratio_au*0.698 | ratio_au*0.698 | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | ratio_au*0.698 | ratio_au*0.698 | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | ratio_au*0.564 | ratio_au*0.564 | NA |
Brimstone North | ratio_au*0.765 | ratio_au*0.765 | NA |
Brimstone Main | ratio_au*0.765 | ratio_au*0.765 | NA |
LeachPad | ratio_au*0.765 | ratio_au*0.765 | NA |
Foothills East | ratio_au*0.765 | ratio_au*0.765 | NA |
Vortex | ratio_au*0.765 | ratio_au*0.765 | NA |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
West (Center) | 15.00% | 15.00% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | 20.00% | 20.00% | NA |
Brimstone North | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Brimstone Main | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
LeachPad | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Foothills East | 22.00% | 22.00% | NA |
Vortex | 21.00% | 21.00% | NA |
3/4" Crushed Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | ratio_au*0.832 | ratio_au*0.832 | NA |
West (Center) | ratio_au*0.819 | ratio_au*0.819 | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | ratio_au*0.819 | ratio_au*0.819 | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | ratio_au*0.792 | ratio_au*0.792 | NA |
Brimstone North | ratio_au*0.980 | ratio_au*0.980 | NA |
Brimstone Main | ratio_au*0.980 | ratio_au*0.980 | NA |
LeachPad | ratio_au*0.980 | ratio_au*0.980 | NA |
Foothills East | ratio_au*0.980 | ratio_au*0.980 | NA |
Vortex | ratio_au*0.980 | ratio_au*0.980 | NA |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | 25.00% | 25.00% | NA |
West (Center) | 18.00% | 18.00% | NA |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Brimstone North | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Brimstone Main | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
LeachPad | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Foothills East | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
Vortex | 37.00% | 37.00% | NA |
1/2" Crushed Heap Leach Recovery | % | % | % |
Au recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | NA | 55.00% | 55.00% |
West (Center) | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
|
165 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Oxide | Transitional | Sulfide | |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Brimstone North | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Brimstone Main | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
LeachPad | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Foothills East | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Vortex | NA | 65.00% | 65.00% |
Ag recovery by domain (% of Fire) | |||
NW (Bay) | NA | 55.00% | 55.00% |
West (Center) | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Upper (Camel) - Above water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
SW Lower (Camel) - Below water table | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Brimstone North | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Brimstone Main | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
LeachPad | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Foothills East | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
Vortex | NA | 70.00% | 70.00% |
· | Ratio_au is the ratio of the cyanide soluble au grade to the fire au grade |
Table 12-4: Soda Ash Costs
Soda Ash Cost | = | Cost of Soda Ash x Soda Ash Required |
Cost of Soda Ash | = | $0.11 per pound |
Soda Ash Required | = | % Oxidation x 2000 x %Sulfide Sulfur x 1.57 |
% Oxidation | = | (Target Oxidation - ratio_au) / Liberation Rate |
Target Oxidation | : | Bay = 55%; All Others = 70% |
ratio_au | = | aucn block grade / aufa block grade |
Liberation Rate | if (ratio_au le 0.05) then = 1.77 | |
if (ratio_au le 0.10) then = 1.89 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.15) then = 1.99 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.20) then = 2.09 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.25) then = 2.18 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.30) then = 2.27 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.35) then = 2.36 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.40) then = 2.44 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.45) then = 2.53 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.50) then = 2.60 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.55) then = 2.68 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.60) then = 2.70 | ||
if (ratio_au le 0.70) then = 2.78 |
The NSR calculation covers all fixed and variable costs including mining, processing, sustaining capital deemed to be directly proportional to ore tonnage, general and administration, gross royalties, transport and shipping costs, smelting and refining costs, limits to payable metals, and refining penalties for deleterious metals. The following is an example of the method used to calculate the NSR expressed in US dollars per ton (US$/t):
NSR (US$/t) is calculated from the following equation:
NSR = (((Au Price – Au Selling) * Au Grade * Recovery Au * Au Refine) + ((Ag Price - Ag Selling) * Ag Grade * Recovery Ag * Ag Refine)) * (1 - Royalty) - Mine Cost - Process Cost - Soda Ash Cost - Sustaining Cost - G&A Cost
|
166 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Where:
NSR | = Net Smelter Return |
Au Price | = Au selling price in $ per troy ounce |
Au Grade | = Au fire grade in troy ounces per ton |
Recovery Au | = % metallurgical recovery of Au by process route & domain |
Au Refine | = % payable for Au refining losses and deductions |
Ag Price | = Ag selling price in $ per troy ounce |
Ag Grade | = Ag fire grade in troy ounces per ton |
Recovery Ag | = % metallurgical recovery of Ag by process route & domain |
Ag Refine | = % payable for Ag refining losses and deductions |
Royalty | = % royalty (note due to very limited royalty remaining, no royalty has been included) |
Mine Cost | = mining cost per ton by material type |
Process Cost | = process cost per ton by process type & domain |
Soda Ash Cost | = soda ash cost per ton |
Sustaining Cost | = sustaining cost per ton |
G&A Costs | = general and administrative cost per ton |
The over-all slope design parameters for the whittle pits varied between 30° and 50°. Detailed Whittle pit slope angles by zone are listed in Table 12-5. These are over-all slope angles and are the result of an iterative process that takes into consideration approximate ramp access in pit design.
Table 12-5: Whittle Pit Slope Profiles
Slope Profiles | |
Zone | Angle (deg.) |
1 | 45 |
2 | 38 |
3 | 41 |
4 | 50 |
5 | 30 |
6 | 32 |
7 | 32 |
8 | 32 |
9 | 45 |
10 | 38 |
11 | 45 |
12 | 50 |
13 | 38 |
14 | 38 |
15 | 50 |
16 | 50 |
17 | 43 |
18 | 37 |
19 | 40 |
20 | 45 |
21 | 40 |
22 | 35 |
23 | 45 |
|
167 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Reserve estimates are typically most sensitive to metal price and this sensitivity can be analyzed in terms of the results of the reserve whittle pit optimization for a range of metal prices. The reserve is relatively insensitive to metal price, in terms defined for this study, and current assumptions on metal price.
Table 12-6 presents the changes in economic pit limits based on metal price sensitivity as estimated by the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm.
Additional sensitivities to financial results on costs and other factors are discussed Section 19.
Table 12-6: Geovia Whittle® Economic Pit Limits
· | Based on Whittle optimized shells and does not account for final mine design, nor does it include stockpiled material. |
12.2 | Dilution |
Hycroft determined that the dilution was accounted for in the generation of the block model for the Mineral Reserves tons and grade incorporated into the mining schedule. In Hycroft’s opinion, given the type of gold and silver mineralization, the large selective mining unit, the historical reconciliations at Hycroft, and the experience of adjacent mines in the region in addressing dilution factors, the appropriate measures have been employed for dilution in the Mineral Reserves.
12.3 | Cut-off Grades |
In the case of Hycroft’s open pit, all costs listed above are accounted for during the optimization phase of pit limit planning. Once the optimum pit extents have been determined, the decision to mine the material has been made and the cost incurred; the only task remaining then is to determine the optimal routing of the material. G&A as applied at Hycroft, is a fixed cost and does not vary by the tons mined or processed. As such, G&A costs are applied as an annual cost in the mine planning and not applied as a $/t to ore processed. All material routing is based on optimal destination determination accounting for all applicable costs, recoveries, and limits (i.e. crushing capacity).
NSR’s are used as the basis of mineral reserve estimations and for decisions influencing operating strategy, mine planning and design. In practice, Hycroft requires the use of the NSR calculation due to differing mining and processing costs, recoveries, and the influence of both gold and silver. Factors including the variable ore types and mineralogy, different process streams and metallurgical recoveries, and related haulage distance can all cause variability in mining and processing costs and block value.
It is important to note that calculation of the breakeven NSR contains no profit assumptions; therefore, the breakeven NSR cut-off will always be US$0/t. Typical break-even cut-off grades for individual single metal gold and silver are shown in Table 12-7. It must be noted that the NSR calculation incorporates more than the cut-off grades shown below in Table 12-7; however, the break-even cut-off grades shown are typical for Hycroft.
|
168 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 12-7: Typical Break-even Individual Single Metal Cut-off Grade Summary
Process Method | Au (opt) | Ag (opt) |
ROM Oxide Leach Recovery | 0.006 | 0.938 |
ROM Transitional Leach Recovery | 0.008 | 1.115 |
3/4" Crushed Oxide Leach Recovery | 0.005 | 0.793 |
3/4" Crushed Transitional Leach Recovery | 0.007 | 0.835 |
1/2" Crushed Transitional Leach Recovery | 0.006 | 0.420 |
1/2" Crushed Sulfide Leach Recovery | 0.007 | 0.519 |
· | These typical break-even cut-off grades are listed for informational reference only and should not be considered actual cut-off grades used. |
|
169 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
13 | Mining Methods |
13.1 | Open Pit Design |
Open Pits were designed by generating Whittle pit shells based on net block values (net smelter returns) and pit slopes recommended by CNI and Golder Associates. Using the Whittle shells as guides, Hycroft designed the final pit with haul ramps, appropriate catch benches, and mining widths. The Hycroft open pit is a large pit, covering an area nearly 3.25 miles long by 1.75 miles wide and reaching a maximum depth of approximately 2,700 feet. The reserve price Whittle shell based on $1,200/oz au and $16.50/oz ag was used guiding the design.
Pit phasing has been designed internal to the final pit limit. Phasing was based on lower revenue whittle shells, access, and minimum mining widths. The purpose of the phasing is to improve over-all economics by mining higher economic margin phases first. In total, 22 individual phases have been designed.
Haul ramps are design to be 120 ft wide, including the safety berm for double lane traffic accommodating 320-t class trucks. A 10% maximum grade has been considered in the final design. Some internal pit phase designs considered single-lane travel and 12.5% maximum grade for a very limited number of benches near the bottom of the phase. All pits are designed to be mined on 40-ft high benches with catch benches every bench. Catch bench widths varied from a maximum of 46.20 ft to a minimum of 22.85 ft.
13.2 | Open Pit Operations |
Hycroft mining operations are currently planned for typical truck and shovel open pit mining methods. The mine plan developed for the Hycroft feasibility requires an average of approximately 85 – 100 million tons per year to be mined throughout the 34-year mine life. Production is scheduled to start at 5 million tons in year one, ramp up to 20 million tons in year two, 36 million in year three, 60 million tons in year four, 75 million in year five, and 85 million in year 6. Another ramp-up in production occurs in year 10 to 100 million tons as the larger phases need stripping. This production remains steady until the later years before the end of mining when it starts to ramp down as stripping is no longer required. The life of mine stripping ratio (waste to ore) is 1.17:1.
Over the life of the mine, ore routing is based on optimal destination determination accounting for all applicable costs, recoveries, and limits (i.e. crushing capacity). The following ore routing is available to each block:
· | Oxide Ore | - ROM heap leach & ¾” crushed heap leach | |
· | Transitional Ore | - ROM heap leach, ¾” crushed heap leach, ½” crushed heap leach | |
· | Sulfide Ore | - ½” crushed heap leach |
During the life of the mine, crusher capacity ramps up from 25 million to 36 million tons per year of crushing capacity. The crusher is always kept at full capacity. Lower-grade ROM is processed as it is encountered in mining. Due to crusher capacity limits, scheduling results in routing some higher-grade oxide and transitional material to ROM and lower-grade sulfide to waste in over-all mine net present value (NPV) optimization. Mining is planned to be carried out initially with a fleet of Hycroft owned mining equipment. The initial fleet consists of 30-cubic-yard hydraulic excavators and 200-t class trucks.
The first ramp up in production is achieved with Contract mining support. Mid-Year 2 through Mid-Year 7 is completed with Contract mining. Contract mining considers full-service contract mining with the Contractor providing all equipment, operators, maintainers, and operations supervision.
In Year 6 mining will start to transition back to owner fleets consisting of larger 55-cubic-yard excavators and 320-t class trucks as production ramps up. Blast-hole drills will be capable of drilling up to 9-7/8” diameter holes and 40-ft
|
170 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
benches. Track dozers, wheel dozers, front-end loaders, graders, water trucks, and service vehicles support the mining operation. By Mid-year 7 all mining has transitioned to owner mining.
Overburden is hauled from the open pit to adjacent Waste Rock Fill (WRF) storage areas. Some partial pit backfilling using mined overburden from adjacent pit phases is considered to minimize haulage distances and maximize mine value. ROM ore is hauled directly to the leach pads from the open pit, while crushed ore is hauled to the primary crusher and dumped directly into the crusher hopper. Allowances have been made for some short-term ore stockpiling and re-handling near the crusher. Long-term ore stockpiling is considered in optimizing the operations. Economic stockpiles are re-handled and processed at several times during the LOM, but the majority of stockpile is processed at the end of mine life.
Vertical blast holes are loaded with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil or emulsion. Powder factors vary due to changing geology. An average powder factor of 0.69 lbs/ton is typical. All material except fill from previous mining activities require drill and blast. Blasting is performed only during daylight hours and under strict safety procedures and scheduled times. Explosives and blasting agents are handled by licensed handlers and transported and stored on site in compliance with all federal, state, and county regulations.
13.3 | Ore Control |
Block model block dimensions are defined to incorporate the SMU of the mining equipment selected. Mining dilution and ore recovery are addressed within the block model estimation and no further adjustments have been made in the reserves or mine planning. This has been shown to be valid in historic reconciliations between ore control and block modeling.
Ore control procedures previously developed and utilized at Hycroft will be used. Cuttings from production drill holes are collected following standardized procedures and delivered to the on-site laboratory for analysis. Results will be downloaded into an acQuire database. The ore control geologist then imports the assay results into mine planning software and merges them with survey information. Interpolation of the blast hole data will be performed in Vulcan software, producing an ore control block model. The ore and waste boundaries are then delineated using predefined modeling and ore routing parameters.
Ore will be routed to the appropriate process method based on geologic, metallurgic, and economic criteria. Ore polygons and bench maps are generated as required (typically daily) and provided to mine planners, operations supervisors, and all loading operators.
13.4 | Waste Rock Storage |
WRF’s are typically constructed by end dumping waste rock from mine haul trucks over existing waste rock facilities, onto native alluvial material, or into existing pits. Design features include irregular shapes that blend the proposed and existing WRFs with natural topography, rounded bench crests, and abutments with undisturbed lands, concurrent reclamation where practicable, and varying slope angles on side slopes. As an WRF is constructed, the slopes of individual benches will be allowed to stand at the natural angle of repose. Generally, WRF will be placed using a lift/bench approach that is designed with bench setbacks sufficient to approximate the post-reclamation configuration employing 2.5H:1V slopes. This provides both operational stability and reduction of required reclamation effort. The WRF tops will be constructed without depressions and positive slopes to promote run-off from the tops and prevent ponding of meteoric water. The tops of the slopes will be rounded into the side slopes and the bottom of the slopes will be rounded out to blend into the surrounding topography. This design will limit erosion on the slopes and approximates a natural mature slope configuration found in nature.
In accordance with the approved Waste Rock Management Plan (HRDI, 2011), material identified as potentially acid generating (PAG) and non-potentially acid generating (non-PAG) will be mixed in WRFs during operation. Preliminary
|
171 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
geochemical modeling to predict the chemistry of seepage from WRFs indicates that seepage through the facilities would be unlikely to impact waters of the State. Additionally, preliminary modeling results showed that meteoric runoff from non-PAG materials located on the surface of the WRF will be circum-neutral with all chemical constituents below required reference values.
Storm water from undisturbed areas upgradient will be diverted around the WRFs and will be returned to natural drainages during operations. The diversions will be designed to handle the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Prior to use, the proposed WRF footprints will be cleared of vegetation, and growth media will be salvaged and placed in proposed growth media stockpiles. Growth media includes salvaged material to be used for covering facilities during reclamation. To facilitate concurrent reclamation, salvageable growth media will be stockpiled as close to the place of use as possible, including direct placement on top of WRFs.
Pit backfill is also planned and will be sequenced with the mining operations. Waste rock will be placed in certain pits once mining is no longer economic. Currently, Hycroft is authorized to backfill the Bay Pit and portions of the Brimstone Pit. Backfill material will not be placed in areas of anticipated post-mining groundwater inflow (at or below 3,630 feet).
13.5 | Geomechanics |
CNI and Golder have previously assessed the stability of slopes for pits at Hycroft. Geology models of alteration, rock type and major faults, along with hydrologic models were used to develop stability sections for the ultimate pit design. Those recommendations have been considered for the current pit design.
CNI separated the Hycroft pit design into sectors based on rock quality (alteration) and location with respect to the major faults. Golder Associates continued the use these sectors to update the geotechnical slope design recommendations in a 2016 review.
In current application, if a specific slope zone is not defined, the slopes are assigned by alteration. Slopes in Argilic and Propylitic alterations have been designed at a 38° inter-ramp slope angle. Acid Leach alteration is completely mined out, not having any significant final pit slopes. Any pit slopes which may remain in acid leach alteration is designed at 41° inter-ramp slope angle. Slopes in Silicic alteration are designed at 50° inter-ramp slope angle.
West of the Break Fault, slope stability is controlled by the strength of the unconsolidated Camel Formation. Overall slope angles in the upper portion of the west wall sectors of the Vortex domain vary from 30° to 38°. Below the 3600 elevation, the inter-ramp slope angle is 50°, as competent silicified rock is present in the wall (Golder, 2016). There are four slope sectors that define pit slopes west of the Break Fault: WBF-U, WBF-M, WBF-L, WBF-2U.
To the east of the Break Fault, the rock strength improves significantly due to the pervasive silica alteration of the Camel and Kamma Mountain Formations. Pit slopes for these sectors have been designed to an inter-ramp angle of 38 - 50°. There are three slope sectors that define the pit slopes east of the Break Fault: Vortex-1U, Vortex-1L and Vortex-3.
Thinly bedded rhyolite of the ALS is located in the footwall of the East Fault at depth. A 38° inter-ramp slope angle has been utilized for this sector: Vortex-2. A minimum 220-foot buttress (which is mined as one of the final mining phases) in the silicified rock in the hanging wall has been designed to manage the weak ALS unit that is present at the toe of the slope.
The hanging wall of the East Fault is composed primarily of silicified rock of the Camel and Kamma Mountain Formations and is defined by 2 slope sectors: FWEF-1, FWEF-2. Pit slopes for these sectors have been designed to an inter-ramp angle of 45°.
|
172 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
North of the deeper Vortex portion of the final pit are sectors associated with the Brimstone Pit. The highest slope in this area of the pit is the 1,200-foot-high east wall. The slope has been designed at an inter-ramp angle of 45° for this sector, identified as WBRIM. The East Fault will be mined out in this sector, thereby avoiding potential failure associated with the weak fault zone.
The west wall of Brimstone is less than 1,000 feet high. The upper 150 to 200 feet of the wall will be excavated in mine waste dumps. This stacked waste rock has been laid back to 35° degrees, roughly the angle of repose. Alluvium is present below the dumped waste. Inter-ramp angles of 42° have been utilized for this material. Silicified and argillically altered rocks of the Camel Conglomerate occur at depth. North Ramp Fault slopes will be constructed mainly in argillically altered Camel Conglomerate. An inter-ramp angle of 42° has been used for slopes in this sector. Both these wall sections are defined by the slope sector NRF.
Table 13-1 and Figure 13-1 summarize and illustrate the geotechnical slope sectors.
Table 13-1: Geotechnical Slope Design
Zone |
Vertical
distance between Catch Benches (ft) |
Face
Angle (deg.) |
Catch
Bench Width (ft) |
Inter-
Ramp Angle (deg.) |
Whittle
Profile |
Whittle
Slope (deg.) |
Default | 40 | 75 | 29.3 | 45 | 1 | 45 |
Argillic Alteration | 40 | 75 | 40.5 | 38 | 2 | 38 |
Propylitic Alteration | 40 | 75 | 40.5 | 38 | 2 | 38 |
Acid Leach Alteration | 40 | 75 | 35.3 | 41 | 3 | 41 |
Silicic Alteration | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 4 | 50 |
WBF-U (above 4025 ft elev) | 40 | 60 | 46.2 | 30 | 5 | 30 |
WBF-2U | 40 | 60 | 28.1 | 38 | 6 | 32 |
WBF-M (4025 - 3600 ft elev) | 40 | 60 | 40.9 | 32 | 7 | 32 |
WBF-2L | 40 | 60 | 40.9 | 38 | 8 | 32 |
WBF-L (below 3600 ft elev) | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 9 | 45 |
Vortex-1U Argillic | 40 | 75 | 40.5 | 38 | 10 | 38 |
Vortex-1U Silicic | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 11 | 45 |
Vortex-1L | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 12 | 50 |
Vortex-2 | 40 | 75 | 40.5 | 38 | 13 | 38 |
Vortex-3 Argillic | 40 | 75 | 40.5 | 38 | 14 | 38 |
Vortex-3 Silicic | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 15 | 50 |
Vortex-3L | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 16 | 50 |
WBRIM | 40 | 75 | 29.3 | 45 | 17 | 43 |
NRF | 40 | 75 | 33.7 | 42 | 18 | 37 |
FWEF-1 | 40 | 75 | 29.3 | 45 | 19 | 40 |
FWEF-2 | 40 | 75 | 29.3 | 45 | 20 | 45 |
Camel-1 | 40 | 75 | 22.8 | 50 | 21 | 40 |
Fill(1) | 40 | 60 | 34 | 35 | 22 | 35 |
Alluvium | 40 | 75 | 29.3 | 45 | 23 | 45 |
|
173 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-1: Geotechnical Sectors
13.6 | Mine Dewatering |
Current assumptions are for the open pit to be mined to an ultimate elevation of 2,880 feet amsl. The potentiometric surface within the proposed pit boundary has been measured at approximately 4,200 feet amsl. Prior to excavation activities extending below the water table, dewatering will be required to ensure access to ore and to maintain a safe working environment. A combination of active dewatering by the wells with handling residual passive inflow at the bottom of the pit is proposed.
In 2011 and 2014, SRK evaluated the hydrogeologic setting of the Hycroft district, and preliminary estimated dewatering requirements for the mining plan designed for a mill feasibility study. The dewatering system estimates were reviewed by SRK in 2019 with the new pit design and slower pit sinking rates scheduled in this new feasibility study. The reviewed model predicts that dewatering rates varying between 316 gpm to nearly 1,600 gpm from seven pumping well centers over the 31-year dewatering period will draw the water table below the excavated pit as possible. Residual passive inflow to the pit is expected to be less than 200 gpm, which can be managed by an in-pit sump dewatering system.
|
174 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
In 2012 SRK and HRC constructed a prototype dewatering well and completed a long-term pumping test evaluating the conceptual dewatering strategy that focused on the highly transmissive faults identified during the characterization program. The prototype well was cased as a 10-inch well, completed within the Central Fault near its intersection with the Camel Fault, and designed for a target pumping rate between 300 and 500 gpm. Over the 7-day pumping test the average discharge rate was approximately 120 gpm. This lower than expected pumping rate was attributed to significant formation damage from multiple test holes completed in advance of the final well bore. Although the discharge rate was less than expected, the test did confirm the efficacy of a fault-centric dewatering strategy with the following findings:
· | Data indicates that the Central Fault was highly transmissive (~3,500 ft2/day) at the test location; |
· | Drawdown within the test monitoring network did not see evidence of a strong barrier to flow at the adjoining Camel Fault; |
· | The test did not provide evidence of a deep, geothermal upward flux beneath the mine area; and |
· | Static pressures in the monitoring instrumentation show a downward gradient in both the fault and in the footwall rocks. |
The overall well design and siting strategy for the prototype dewatering well, forms the basis for the planning and implementation of active dewatering via groundwater well for the expansion of the Hycroft Mine.
Active dewatering will be conducted through the installation of wells in approximately seven pumping centers around the perimeter of the open pit, targeting specific faults – Range, Central, Break, and Ramp. Wells will be installed to a maximum depth of 330 feet below the proposed lowest elevation of the open pit, though pumping depths may vary as the pit progresses wider and deeper. The location of seven pumping centers within identified transmissive faults around the open pit is shown in Figure 13-2. Identification of additional transmissive structures, or localized groundwater upwelling may be identified later in mine development as the pits connect and deepen beyond 4,000 ft amsl (Year 10 and beyond), necessitating modification of the dewatering strategy and/or construction of additional infrastructure.
Residual passive inflow to four individual lobes (Silver Camel, Brimstone North, Brimstone South, and Vortex) will be managed by in-pit sumps. If necessary, horizontal drains will be used in the pit walls, to reduce the pore pressures (particularly along the East Fault). Passive inflow water will be collected by the sumps and then pumped to the process facility for consumptive use.
LOM capital costs to construct and maintain the dewatering system are estimated to be $15.8 million. The system consists of ten pumping wells drilled from seven pumping centers, an in-pit sump with pump, piping to the pit rim, a pit rim water tank and piping to the process facilities. Additionally, 135 lateral drainholes were assumed for depressurization of the rock to the east of East Fault along the highwall of Brimstone Pit. The capital cost estimate was informed by the completed prototype well, and recent experience with projects of similar size and scope. The capital costs include a 20% contingency as presented to address technical uncertainty and cost estimation confidence. However, should significant changes in the conceptual hydrogeology of the local groundwater system be identified, costs associated with mine dewatering may be underestimated.
LOM operating costs for the de-watering program average $0.75 million dollars per year, primarily consisting of pump power costs and dewatering system maintenance. Early years are slightly lower, and costs rise as pit development advances. These operating costs include a 20% contingency as presented.
Mining to-date has not penetrated the water table. The feasibility mine plan remains above the water table for 3 years after mining begins, with consistent residual passive inflow not expected until Year 12.
|
175 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Note: Map shows geology simulated in uppermost layer of numerical groundwater flow model (SRK, 2014). Black lines show extent of proposed pit below the water table and red dots indicate the location of identified dewatering pumping centers.
Figure 13-2: Location of Dewatering Wells Simulated by Groundwater Model (SRK, 2019)
|
176 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Current design of dewatering system is based on understanding that bedrock in the mine area is generally low in hydraulic conductivity in peripheral areas where it is weakly altered to unaltered, but more permeable in the central mining area where alteration is strong, and the rocks are cut by subvertical transmissive faults. However, there are some uncertainties within the characterization of the hydrogeologic system including:
· | Variability of hydraulic parameters within the various fault zones of the mining area. Limited testing along the lengthy strike of these structures has defined both high permeability and high variability across the strike of the faults. Hydraulic parameters of Range and Ramp faults, targeted for dewatering, are unknown but believed to be similar to values derived from testing in other structures; and |
· | The potential presence of a deep thermal groundwater system that could contribute additional inflows to the pit through faults. High water temperature and hot-spring gases suggest that an active geothermal system; however, there is no evidence that a prolific, hot-water aquifer remains beneath the site. |
These uncertainties suggest the following risks in the dewatering strategy:
· | Poor efficiency of dewatering via highly permeable structures would require: |
o | Installation of additional dewatering wells; and/or, |
o | Management of additional groundwater through passive collection within the pits. |
· | Increased vertical groundwater flux from a deep thermal groundwater source would require: |
o | Increase pumping rate from dewatering wells; and or, |
o | Installation of additional dewatering wells. |
Under both risk scenarios, capital and operating costs associated with dewatering would increase. However, these risks have limited exposure early in the development and are more relevant as the pits deepen and merge after Year 10. Data collection on the dewatering system performance will inform dewatering strategies as the mine progresses, including any potential adjustments for these risks, allowing for planning and measured capital expenditure should a remedy be required. Furthermore, mine dewatering capital and operating expenditures have a 20% contingency included in part to address this risk. However, should significant changes in the conceptual hydrogeology of the local groundwater system be identified, active dewatering requirements and/or residual passive inflow may be underestimated, along with associated capital and operating costs.
13.7 | Life of Mine Plan |
The June 30, 2019 Life of Mine Plan (LOM) for Hycroft schedules the operation for 34 years of mining followed by 1 year of production leaching. A total of approximately 2.6 billion tons of ore and waste is scheduled to be mined. Mine production is scheduled to ramp-up from approximately 5 million tons the first year to 85 million tons per year by year 6, and ultimately to 100 million tons per year. Mining is completed using a mix of existing Hycroft fleet of mining equipment, contract mining, and new equipment purchases. Mining ramps up as new leach pad construction is completed and as additional crushing capacity and fine ore convey and stack is completed. The low initial strip ratios are a result of the historic mining that has stripped several pits down to sustainable ore.
The ore will be processed in three possible routes: ROM heap leach, ¾” crushed heap leach, and ½” crushed heap leach. The crushing plant capacity of (initially 25 million) 36 million tons per year is a main limit to both ore and total production. Due to increased margins on crushed material, the crusher is always kept at full capacity. ROM and ¾” crushed ores are not main drivers of the mine plan and it is processed as encountered in mining. Of the total 1.13
|
177 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
billion tons of ore, 43 million tons (4%) is routed as ROM heap leach, 24 million tons (2%) is routed as ¾” crushed heap leach, and 1.1 billion tons (94%) is routed as ½” crushed heap leach. Table 13-2 shows the LOM production schedule.
Table 13-2: Annual Production Schedule
Period |
(000) |
Ore Tons
Processed (000) |
Ore Grade
(oz/t Au) |
Ore Grade
(oz/t Ag) |
Contained
(000 oz Au) |
Contained
(000 oz Au) |
Total Tons
(000) |
Strip
Ratio |
Year 1 | 0 | 4,488 | 0.018 | 0.113 | 80 | 506 | 4,488 | 0.00 |
Year 2 | 6,682 | 12,562 | 0.015 | 0.293 | 187 | 3,685 | 19,244 | 0.53 |
Year 3 | 12,268 | 23,278 | 0.011 | 0.383 | 255 | 8,918 | 35,546 | 0.53 |
Year 4 | 32,393 | 27,607 | 0.010 | 0.428 | 280 | 11,807 | 60,000 | 1.17 |
Year 5 | 45,912 | 28,689 | 0.012 | 0.340 | 353 | 9,759 | 74,602 | 1.60 |
Year 6 | 49,000 | 36,000 | 0.011 | 0.496 | 398 | 17,849 | 86,367 | 1.36 |
Year 7 | 44,085 | 40,915 | 0.010 | 0.480 | 407 | 19,628 | 86,182 | 1.08 |
Year 8 | 48,868 | 36,132 | 0.011 | 0.207 | 415 | 7,486 | 92,325 | 1.35 |
Year 9 | 46,975 | 38,025 | 0.009 | 0.570 | 357 | 21,661 | 85,000 | 1.24 |
Year 10 | 63,742 | 36,258 | 0.013 | 0.601 | 482 | 21,791 | 100,000 | 1.76 |
Year 11 | 63,689 | 36,311 | 0.011 | 0.664 | 398 | 24,095 | 100,000 | 1.75 |
Year 12 | 59,422 | 40,578 | 0.010 | 0.444 | 424 | 18,014 | 100,000 | 1.46 |
Year 13 | 63,173 | 36,827 | 0.009 | 0.606 | 344 | 22,311 | 100,000 | 1.72 |
Year 14 | 62,624 | 37,376 | 0.012 | 0.290 | 446 | 10,851 | 100,000 | 1.68 |
Year 15 | 63,910 | 36,090 | 0.009 | 0.324 | 313 | 11,707 | 108,388 | 1.77 |
Year 16 | 63,247 | 36,753 | 0.009 | 0.324 | 329 | 11,901 | 100,000 | 1.72 |
Year 17 | 63,250 | 36,750 | 0.009 | 0.330 | 342 | 12,136 | 100,000 | 1.72 |
Year 18 | 62,064 | 37,936 | 0.012 | 0.405 | 453 | 15,363 | 100,000 | 1.64 |
Year 19 | 48,873 | 36,127 | 0.014 | 0.650 | 507 | 23,476 | 85,000 | 1.35 |
Year 20 | 48,920 | 36,080 | 0.009 | 0.640 | 312 | 23,093 | 102,522 | 1.36 |
Year 21 | 47,910 | 37,090 | 0.009 | 0.356 | 319 | 13,188 | 96,353 | 1.29 |
Year 22 | 48,372 | 36,628 | 0.009 | 0.334 | 317 | 12,230 | 94,240 | 1.32 |
Year 23 | 48,972 | 36,028 | 0.013 | 0.541 | 455 | 19,489 | 88,305 | 1.36 |
Year 24 | 38,870 | 36,054 | 0.011 | 0.360 | 383 | 12,987 | 74,925 | 1.08 |
Year 25 | 26,356 | 36,009 | 0.011 | 0.253 | 379 | 9,094 | 67,350 | 0.73 |
Year 26 | 26,413 | 36,009 | 0.010 | 0.292 | 374 | 10,515 | 67,348 | 0.73 |
Year 27 | 25,061 | 36,000 | 0.010 | 0.290 | 378 | 10,425 | 66,039 | 0.70 |
Year 28 | 24,000 | 36,000 | 0.011 | 0.204 | 407 | 7,326 | 63,393 | 0.67 |
Year 29 | 14,000 | 36,000 | 0.010 | 0.180 | 352 | 6,488 | 59,774 | 0.39 |
Year 30 | 27,816 | 36,000 | 0.011 | 0.273 | 388 | 9,837 | 63,816 | 0.77 |
Year 31 | 24,164 | 36,000 | 0.011 | 0.429 | 394 | 15,439 | 60,164 | 0.67 |
Year 32 | 15,297 | 36,000 | 0.011 | 0.770 | 401 | 27,727 | 51,297 | 0.42 |
Year 33 | 5,526 | 36,000 | 0.009 | 0.818 | 328 | 29,462 | 56,775 | 0.15 |
Year 34 | 0 | 8,457 | 0.005 | 0.137 | 39 | 1,155 | 8,457 | 0.00 |
Total | 1,321,853 | 1,133,060 | 0.011 | 0.425 | 11,997 | 481,400 | 2,557,900 | 1.17 |
13.8 | Mine Equipment |
Hycroft has a small existing fleet of mine equipment remaining on-site which is utilized in initial mining. First ramp-ups in production will utilize Contract mining with the contractor bringing in fleets capable of meeting mine production requirements. During Year 6 Hycroft will begin to re-capitalize with a new mining fleet and take over all mining activities by mid-year 7.
lists the existing fleet as well as the major pieces of equipment planned by the Contract and new equipment to be purchased by Hycroft to achieve the scheduled production.
|
178 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 13-3: Mining Fleet
Hycroft Existing Fleet | # |
Hitachi EX3500 - 32 cu yd | 2 |
Caterpillar 994 wheel loader | 1 |
Komatsu 730E Trucks (200-t) | 6 |
Caterpillar 16G Grader | 2 |
Komatsu 475 Dozer | 1 |
Caterpillar D10T Dozer | 1 |
Caterpillar D11T Dozer | 2 |
Caterpillar 834 RTD | 1 |
Atlas Copco DML | 1 |
Volvo A40D Water Truck | 1 |
Komatsu 20k Water Truck | 1 |
Fuel Truck A40D | 1 |
Contractor Fleet | # |
PC4000 - 29 cu yd | 2 |
PC8000 - 55 cu yd | 2 |
Komatsu 930E Trucks (320-t) | 20 |
Blasthole Drills | 7 |
Support Equipment | As Needed |
Hycroft Purchased Fleet | # |
Hydraulic Shovel - 47 cu yd | 1 |
Hydraulic Shovel - 55 cu yd | 2 |
Wheel Loader - 40 cu yd | 1 |
Haul Trucks - 320-t | 26 |
D11-Sized Dozer | 6 |
18M-Sized Grader | 3 |
RTD’s | 2 |
Water Trucks – 40k Gal. | 3 |
Blasthole Drills | 8 |
Service & Support Equipment | As Needed |
The fleet is replaced at least one time over the mine life, with drills being replaced twice. Table 13-4 lists the hours utilized in the replacement schedule.
Table 13-4: Mine Equipment Useful Life
The following maps (Figure 13-3 through Figure 13-7) show the mine advancement starting at 2020 through end of mine life.
|
179 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-3: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2020
|
180 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-4: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2025
|
181 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-5: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2030
|
182 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-6: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2040
|
183 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 13-7: Pits, Dumps and Heap Leach End of 2052
|
184 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14 | Recovery Methods |
14.1 | Process Description |
As discussed in Section 10, a significant portion of gold in the Hycroft ore is refractory due to its association with pyrite, marcasite and other sulfides. About 94% of the ore contains enough refractory gold to economically justify pretreatment by pre-oxidation prior to cyanide leaching.
The heap leach operation is designed to treat three categories of ore, classified as described below. The process methods applied to Ore Category 3 are covered by a pending patent application.
· | Ore Category 1 (ROM ore) – lower grade ore with high cyanide soluble gold is routed directly to the leach pad and cyanide leached to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 4% of the ore over the life of mine. The gold contents are highly soluble and the remaining refractory gold contents are not projected to justify the time and expense of a pre-oxidation step; therefore it will be stacked as ‘ROM’. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘ROM oxide’ or ‘ROM transition’. |
· | Ore Category 2 (3/4” Crushed ore) – higher grade ore with high cyanide soluble gold is crushed to a P80 of ¾” and cyanide leached to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 2% of the ore over the life of mine. The gold contents are highly soluble, but additional size reduction is expected to increase gold and silver recovery enough to justify the additional expense. The remaining refractory gold contents are not projected to justify the time and expense of a full pre-oxidation cycle. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘3/4” crushed oxide’ or ‘3/4” crushed transition’. |
• | Ore Category 3 (1/2” Crushed ore) – low cyanide soluble ratio ores are crushed to a P80 of ½”. The crushed ore is mixed with soda ash to induce an alkaline ‘pre-oxidation’ process. After the oxidation process has been completed to the desired extent, the ore will be rinsed sequentially with water and saturated lime solution, and then leached with cyanide to extract gold and silver. This accounts for 94% of the ore over the life of the mine. The ore in this category is typically defined as ‘1/2” crushed sulfide’ or ‘1/2” crushed transition’. |
Pregnant solution from the heap leach will be processed by two existing Merrill-Crowe zinc-cementation facilities.
The Hycroft Mine is projected to begin producing gold and silver from low-grade oxide ore and sulfide ore by cyanide heap leaching in the third quarter of 2019. Compared to a traditional oxide heap leach, cash flow is delayed by a length of time equivalent to the length of the dedicated pre-oxidation process.
Figure 14-1 is a simplified schematic of the process for the sulfide plant. This provides the basis for the process description that follows.
14.2 | Process Design Criteria |
HMC plans to ramp up production over five years to the design crushed ore tonnage of 36 million tons per year, starting with 4.5 million tons in 2019, increasing to 12.6 million tons in 2020, 23.3 million tons in 2021, and reaching the target 36 million tons per year by 2024. As discussed above, the yearly tonnage will be supplemented by a small percentage of ore that will be placed and leached as run-of-mine ore.
For the design, M3 uses an availability factor of 75% for the primary crusher, and 85% for the secondary and tertiary crushers if feed bins are used. These design availability factors are common for current and recent projects at M3 and in line with general vendor specifications. The stacking system that will be operational in Year 2024 will have an availability of 85%, which would be dictated by the crushing plant.
|
185 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 14-1: Simplified Process Flow Diagram for the Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Operation
|
186 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Nomenclature and tracking of availability vary from operation to operation. For simplicity, M3 defines “availability” as the estimated actual run time of equipment. This would, therefore, include both “mechanical availability” and “use of mechanical availability” factors in an operating plant.
The mass balance was developed for the Hycroft process using MetSim software. The process simulation assumed overall grades and recoveries for gold, silver and sulfide-sulfur as shown in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1: Head Grades and Recoveries Used for Mass Balance Simulation
Metal | Head Grade | Heap Leach Recovery, % |
Au | 0.011 oz/t | 65 |
Ag | 0.425 oz/t | 71 |
The mine plan was based on recovery and operating cost models, which were also used in the financial analysis in this study. It yielded life-of-mine average head grades of 0.011 oz/t Au, 0.425 oz/t Ag and 1.92% sulfur. Predicted recoveries vary from ore to ore, depending on Au, Ag and sulfide-sulfur contents, as discussed in detail in Section 13 of this report.
The MetSim balance forms the basis for water balance and equipment sizing, including pipes and pumps, as well as sumps or pump boxes, and defines the parameters used in the process design. Table 14-2 is a summary of the main components of the process design criteria used for the study.
14.3 | Crushing Plant Design |
The crushing plant is designed to run a nominal capacity of 98,630 stpd to attain the 36 million ore tons per year target. Hycroft has installed one primary crusher, two secondary crushers and two tertiary crushers. The existing facility will be sufficient during the ramp-up period but will require addition of two more tertiary crushers to attain the design capacity. Processing parameters in the following discussions are derived from simulations of the full plant at the design capacity.
14.3.1 | Primary Crushing and Crushed Ore Stockpile |
Ore will be transported by haul trucks from the mine to the existing primary crusher via a dump pocket with a 960-ton live capacity (3 truckloads). The primary crusher is a 60” x 113” gyratory crusher, with an open side setting of 7 inches and a feed opening of 60 inches. It is powered by a 1000-hp motor.
The crushed ore is discharged via a surge bin to an apron feeder. The ore is then transferred by a stacker conveyor to a coarse-ore stockpile. A belt scale is provided on the stacker conveyor to measure the amount of crushed ore delivered. A self-cleaning magnet is provided to remove any tramp steel before stockpiling.
The coarse ore stockpile has a live capacity of 27,400 tons and a total capacity of 160,000 tons. The live capacity is nominally equivalent to about 6.7 hours of heap leach feed at peak production.
The crushed ore is reclaimed via two reclaim tunnels beneath the stockpile. In the tunnels are identical reclaim lines, each comprising three reclaim feeders (two operating and one standby) and one reclaim transfer conveyor. Each reclaim feeder has a design capacity of 1,359 tph. The crushed ore is reclaimed from the stockpile at a design rate of 2,485 tph per line. Each reclaim conveyor discharges to the secondary crusher feed bins.
Dust suppression units and bag houses are installed to suppress or remove dust generated by dump trucks, crushers and other material handling equipment.
|
187 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 14-2: Process Design Criteria Highlights
DESCRIPTION | DESIGN |
Capacity | |
Tons per year, tpy | 36,000,000 |
Tons per day, tpd, nominal | 98,630 |
Primary crusher, tph |
5,480 |
Secondary & Tertiary crushers & stacker, tph | 4,835 |
Availability/Use of Availability | |
General | 85% |
Primary Crusher | 75% |
Secondary Crusher | 85% |
Tertiary Crusher | 85% |
Stacker | 85% |
Primary Crusher | |
Feed F80, inches | 8.2 |
Product P80, inches | 5.2 |
Crushing work index, kWh/st, 80th Percentile | 9.3 |
Secondary Screening | |
Type | 2-deck, multi-slope |
Screen opening, top deck, inches | 3 |
Screen opening, bottom deck, inch | 0.75 |
Secondary Crushing | |
Type/cavity | Standard/Medium |
Closed-side setting, inches (mm) | 1.125 (29) |
Feed F80, inches | 6.6 |
Product P80, inches | 1.7 |
Tertiary Screening | |
Type | 1-deck, multi-slope |
Screen opening, inches | 0.75 |
Tertiary Crushing | |
Type/cavity | Short head/Fine |
Closed-side setting, inches (mm) | 0.55 (14) |
Feed F80, inches, Sec/Tert | 1.8 |
Product P80, inches, Sec/Tert | 0.47 |
Pre-Oxidation | |
Moisture Content, % | 8 - 12 |
Temperature, oF | Ambient |
Oxidation Time, days | 30 - 180 |
Sulfide-Sulfur Oxidation, % (Ore dependent) | 40% Max |
Soda Ash Consumption, lb/t | 14.5 |
Cyanidation | |
Leach Time, days | |
ROM | 200 |
¾” Crushed | 200 |
½” Crushed | 100 |
Application Rate, gpm/ft2 | 0.0025 |
|
188 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14.3.2 | Secondary and Tertiary Crushing |
Hycroft Mining currently operates four Raptor XL1300 cone crushers – two standard and two short heads, on secondary and tertiary duties, respectively, for the heap leach operation. The crushers are driven by 1,300-hp motors. Each crusher is fed from a bin through a vibrating screen. The two additional tertiary crushers required by Year 6 would preferentially be Raptor XL 1300 cone crushers for commonality of spares. However, equivalent crushers for other vendors may be considered in the future.
All four existing cone crushers failed on commissioning due to original mechanical design flaws. Recently, the manufacturer has redesigned the mechanisms and replaced the internals of all four crushers.
Coarse ore from the secondary crusher feed bin (500 st capacity) is fed to the secondary screens. The secondary screens are double-deck Ludowici banana screens, 10 ft by 24 ft. The crushing/screening simulations call for 3-inch (75 mm) and ¾-inch (19 mm) apertures for the top and bottom decks, respectively. Oversize materials from the two decks proceed to the secondary crushers while the undersize of the lower deck goes to the final crushing plant product.
The secondary crusher is fitted with a standard medium cavity and operated at a closed side setting of 1-1/8 inches. Coarse ore will be crushed to about 80% finer than 1.57 inches (40 mm). Product of the secondary crushers is then be conveyed to the tertiary crusher feed bin (500 st capacity).
From the tertiary crusher feed bins, the ore is fed to the tertiary screens, which are single-deck Ludowici banana screens, 12 ft by 28 ft, with 3/4-inch (19 mm) aperture screens. Oversize materials comprise the feed to the tertiary crushers. The undersize of the screen goes to final crushing-plant product.
The tertiary crushers are fitted with short-head fine cavities and operated at a closed side setting of 0.55 inch (14 mm). The material will be crushed to about 80% finer than 0.466 inch and become the final installment into the crushing-plant final product.
Overall, the product of the crushing plant will have a P80 of approximately 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). This size distribution will be characteristic of the material that is stacked on the heap.
The final crushed ore product will be conveyed towards the heap leach facility, either to a stockpile or directly loaded to trucks, which will transport the ore to the heap. A conveyor stacking system is planned to operate in Year 6 (2024) of operation.
14.4 | Conveying and Stacking |
The final crushed ore product will be conveyed towards the heap leach facility, either to a stockpile or directly loaded to trucks, which will transport the ore to the heap.
A conveyor stacking system is planned to operate in Year 6 (2024) of operation. This will include the existing stockpile conveyor modified to discharge to the first of three new overland conveyors in series. These overland conveyors will take the crushed ore to the stacker. One or more grasshopper conveyors will connect the overland conveyors to the stacker, over the side slope of the heap, as required.
14.5 | Pre-Oxidation |
Pre-oxidation of sulfide and transition ore (crushed to ½”) will begin at the crusher using in-situ moisture and solid soda ash. The soda ash requirement for the ore is relative to the %sulfide-sulfur content of the ore, starting cyanide soluble Au and the target oxidation rate. Regular sampling of mined material will allow reagent addition control; for the life of mine the average soda ash consumption is projected to be 14.5 lbs per ton of placed ore.
|
189 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
The addition of soda ash creates an alkaline environment (60,000 ppm of total Alkalinity, pH 10+) that allows some of the ferrous and ferric ions to remain in solution by complexing with carbonate ions. As discussed in Section 10, the presence of ferrous and ferric carbonate complexes for a redox pair that enhances the oxidation of iron sulfides in an heterogenous electrochemical reaction.
As the reaction proceeds, soda ash will be consumed to neutralize the resultant acid and additional soda ash will be introduced to maintain optimal reaction conditions.
Once ore has been placed on the heap, additional soda ash solution will be applied to bring the ore to field capacity (8 – 10% moisture). The solution in the heap will be replenished on a regular basis using soda ash solution in order to offset evaporation and carbonate consumption. Soda ash solution will be pumped through pipes/tubing that are separate from the lixiviant solution system.
The dissolved oxygen required for the reaction will be replenished through solution to air contact; the dissolved oxygen will be monitored inside the heap using embedded recoverable sensors. If required, air inflow can be aided by installing large perforated piping at the bottom of each panel, with ends protruding out of the heap.
Pre-oxidation duration will be determined by the characteristics of the ore and the measured extent of oxidation based upon sulfate production. The extent of oxidation will be determined by the target recoveries for each domain and the initial cyanide soluble gold, which is translated to degrees of oxidation already achieved. The number of days required to attain target oxidation is dependent upon the sulfide-sulfur content of the ore with, higher sulfide-sulfur corresponding to longer oxidation cycles. The majority of the ore is expected to take between 30 and 120 days to finish pre-oxidation. This is measured between the day that soda ash is introduced to the ore at the crusher and the day that the ‘rinse’ cycle begins for the panel.
14.6 | Rinse Cycle |
Ore that has undergone a pre-oxidation cycle must be rinsed, first with water, then with a saturated lime solution prior to the commencement of cyanidation. The purpose of the rinse is to wash down as much sulfate and bicarbonate, as possible.
If not removed, sulfate will precipitate as CaSO4 during the leach cycle and potentially form a passivation layer against cyanidation. Bicarbonate, on the other hand, has been shown to react with cyanide to form HCN, which is not active in leaching and eventually escapes from solution, thereby increasing the cyanide consumption. The amount of rinse water required would at least be one pore volume replacement, but this should be monitored until the sulfate and alkalinity levels in the rinse water reach a threshold concentration, e.g., 2,000 ppm sulfate and 2,500 ppm total alkalinity.
Saturated lime water may be applied to scavenge the residual bicarbonate in the heap. The added complexity and cost of saturated lime water will have to be weighed against the resulting savings in cyanide consumption. If the remaining bicarbonate is low enough, or the leach solution has enough alkalinity that the pH can be maintained at 10.5, then most of the bicarbonate will be converted to carbonate, which does not react with cyanide. If used, the lime-saturated water will be applied to panels that have undergone pre-oxidation at a rate of 0.0025 gpm/ft2, until one or two pore volumes have been displaced.
Rinse solutions will be supplied using the same piping that delivers lixiviant during the leach phase. Displaced solution will be sent to the soda ash recycle pond.
|
190 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14.7 | Heap Leach Cyanidation |
The cyanidation conditions for all placed ore will be the same regardless of crush size or the use of pre-oxidation. The duration that these conditions are maintained is dependent on the category to which the ore belongs. For panels under active leach, a cyanide concentration of 1.0 lbs/ton of solution will be maintained. The pH will be controlled using lime.
Oxide and transition material that will be leached as ROM will proceed directly from the pit to the heap and begin cyanide leach without undergoing pre-oxidation or rinse. A small percentage of oxide and transition material will be directed to the crushing plant to be reduced to a P80 of ¾” before being stacked and commencing cyanide leach. Ores from both of these categories are expected to undergo a 200-day primary leach cycle using a conservative 3:1 solution to ore ratio and an application rate of 0.0025 gpm/ft2.
Sulfides and a portion of the transition material will be reduced to a P80 of ½” before undergoing the pre-oxidation and rinse processes on the heap. At the conclusion of the rinse a 100-day primary leach cycle will begin. A 1:1 solution to ore ratio and an application rate between 0.0015 gpm/ft2 and 0.0025 gpm/ft2 will be used.
14.8 | Merrill-Crowe Precipitation and Refinery |
Due to the high silver content of the pregnant solution, gold and silver will be recovered by zinc cementation. Hycroft Mining has two Merrill-Crowe plants that are used to process the pregnant solution from the heap leach operation. The older plant has a capacity of 4,500 gpm. The newer plant is considerably larger, with a capacity at present of 21,500 gpm, for the total of 26,000 gpm capacity.
The wet filter cakes from the low-grade and high-grade Merrill-Crowe circuits will be transferred to retort pans, which are then put into a retort furnace to remove water and mercury. Water and then mercury are sequentially volatilized from the precipitate by heating the precipitate under a partial vacuum. The exhaust gases pass through multiple stages of condensers that drain mercury and water to a collection vessel. The last traces of mercury are removed from the retort gas by a packed bed of sulfur-impregnated carbon before being released to the atmosphere. The retorts are typically operated batch-wise, with a cycle time of approximately 18 hours.
The dried filter cake will be mixed with flux and then transferred to an electric arc furnace where it is smelted to produce doré.
14.9 | Water Balance and Solution Management |
Hycroft is currently permitted to use fresh water at a yearly average rate of 12,700 gpm. The estimated fresh water requirement is 3,189 gpm when the heap leach is operating.
Water balance and solution management for the Hycroft operation is complicated by the gradual buildup of sodium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate to a steady-state concentration in the reclaimed water. Sulfate ions were seen in some tests to slow down the sulfide oxidation reaction. Because of this, fresh water addition to the soda ash recycle pond is designed to maximize the dilution of sulfate and bicarbonate ions in the pre-oxidation circuit.
Approximately 690 gpm of the fresh water is allocated for mine dust suppression. All fresh water will be drawn from existing wells that have been operated to supply the property in the past.
A water balance was developed for the Hycroft project as part of the mass balance model using MetSim modeling software. The water and solution management scheme is illustrated in Figure 14-2 below. The acronyms used in Figure 14-2 are: FW = fresh water, SW = seal water, PW = process water, BS = barren solution.
|
191 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 14-2: Water Balance Model
|
192 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14.10 | Reagents and Consumables |
14.10.1 | Consumption Rates |
Reagent storage, mixing and pumping facilities will be provided for all of the reagents used in the processing circuits. Table 14-3 below is a summary of reagents used in the process plant.
Table 14-3: Process Reagents and Consumption Rates
Reagent & Consumables | Units | Consumption |
Soda Ash | lb/t | 14.5 |
Lime | lb/t | 1.4 |
Sodium cyanide | lb/t | 1.0 |
Zinc dust | lb/koz Au | 34.15 |
Zinc dust | lb/koz Ag | 62.35 |
Zinc dust | lb/koz Hg | 67.06 |
Primary Crusher - Liners | lb/t | 0.005 |
Secondary Crusher - Liners | lb/t | 0.004 |
Tertiary Crusher - Liners | lb/t | 0.002 |
14.10.2 | Soda Ash Handling |
Soda ash will be delivered to the site by rail and dumped to a stockpile, which is housed in a building for dust control and to protect the product from weather. A front-end loader will move material from the stockpile to a 500-ton silo outside of the building. The silo will directly load 50-ton trucks that will deliver soda ash to its points of use across the mine. There are 2 points of use; a soda ash mix tank near the ponds, and the drive through silos that will comingle soda ash with ore in trucks that are headed to the primary crusher. The drive through silos will be where the majority of soda ash is introduced to the process. Trucks will be pneumatically unloaded into the silos at each point of use.
14.11 | Power Consumption |
The power consumption in the process plant for a typical year (Year 7) is tabulated in Table 14-4 with a total consumption of 119 million kWh. This translates to about 3.3 kWh/ton or US$0.18/ton of ore processed.
Table 14-4: Summary of Power Consumption in a Typical Year (Year 7)
Area No | Mill Area | Annual kWh | Annual Cost |
100 | Primary Crusher | 6,143,37 | $ 344,029 |
150 | Secondary & Tertiary Crushing | 45,836,031 | $ 2,566,818 |
300/350/550 | Heap Leach/Stacking/Merrill-Crowe | 57,824,931 | $ 3,238,196 |
650 | Water Systems | 4,666,283 | $ 261,312 |
800 | Reagents | 3,272,965 | $ 183,286 |
810 | Rail Unloading & Storage | 986,396 | $ 55,238 |
Total | 118,729,982 | $ 6,648,879 |
|
193 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14.12 | Control Systems |
A crusher control room, located in the primary crusher area at the mine, will be the operating and control center for the crushers and coarse ore transport conveyors, as well as their ancillary support facilities. Solution management and stacking conveyor monitoring will be added to this control room.
14.13 | Plant Services |
14.13.1 | Mobile Equipment |
Table 14-5 lists the mobile equipment that is provided in the project capital cost estimate.
Table 14-5: Mobile Equipment List
Description | Qty | Duty |
D65 | 1 | Grading, general maintenance |
D11 Dozer | 2 | Pad ripping, Pipelayer, special projects |
D10 Dozer | 1 | Reclamation, general maintenance |
4WD Articulated Wheel Loader | 1 | Soda ash handling, Clean-up |
50 Ton Off-Highway Truck | 2 | Soda ash distribution |
Mobile equipment that will be used to build leach pads is not included in the equipment list. All equipment used for the construction of leach pads will be provided by the contractors awarded the work.
14.13.2 | Assay and Metallurgical Laboratories |
The existing laboratory facility will be used to support mining operations. Facilities include sample receiving and storage, sample drying, sample preparation, metallurgical laboratory, wet laboratory, and fire assay for mine and process plant samples.
Forecasting and reagent dosing will be based
upon analytical processes which determine metal grades, sulfide sulfur content and paste pH. Average sulfide sulfur content and
paste pH will be established from drilled samples to ensure that soda ash requirements are determined prior to run of mine ore
delivery to the crusher.
|
194 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
14.14 | Production Estimate |
Production by project year is tabulated in Table 14-6, showing production from the heap leach process.
Table 14-6: Hycroft Metal Production
|
195 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
15 | Project Infrastructure |
The infrastructure for the Hycroft project has been developed considering the existing facilities and the requirements of the project. This section describes the additional infrastructure required to support the Hycroft heap leach expansion project described in this report.
15.1 | Power Supply |
For the Hycroft Heap Leach Feasibility Study, approximately 11.5 MVA of new load will be added to the existing Hycroft substation. It was determined that the existing 37.5 MVA transformer and overhead power lines have enough capacity to accommodate this load. The 60 kV transmission voltage will be stepped down by various transformers around site to 4160V and 480V distribution voltages. All new loads will be fed from new switchgear and motor control centers. New power poles, overhead conductors, and miscellaneous equipment will need to be installed, extending from the existing overhead lines, and run to the soda ash unloading area and the heap leach electrical building.
Eventually, the new Heap Leach Pad will overtake the utility power lines coming into site. Because of this, during year eight of operations, the existing utility switchyard will be replaced and relocated from Lewis Camp and Jungo Roads closer to the soda ash area to the west on Jungo Road. New power lines will be run to the existing substation from the soda ash area switchyard. The 60 kV power lines can piggyback on the new poles and lines that are being installed and run to the soda ash area during project construction, or alternatively, new poles and lines can be installed during year eight. The older power lines and poles coming into site will be abandoned or demolished during that time.
An upgraded 60 kV transmission line and new substation was completed in Q2 2013 to provide additional power for the crushing system, Merrill-Crowe facility, electric rope shovels and existing mine site operations.
15.2 | Water Supply |
Fresh water will be obtained from existing active and inactive production wells in a field west of the mine, and from mine dewatering. Plant water requirements are projected to fall well below the 12,700 gpm that the site is permitted for.
15.3 | Communication |
The site has new data and telephone communications provided by microwave facilities serviced from two different locations. A new 140-foot tower has been installed near the administration building and is the demarcation point for distributing bandwidth around the mine site. Voice and data are distributed around the mine site using fiber optic cable where possible and data radios where the use of fiber is not possible. Cellular communications are now available throughout the site.
15.4 | Railroad |
In order to receive soda ash and potentially fuel, reagents and other supplies, HMC will construct a rail siding off the existing rail line located north of the plant. M3 has provided a design for the rail unloading and soda ash storage facility which will be constructed in parallel with the first throughput ramp-up of the crushing plant. The permit to begin construction was received in January 2015.
15.5 | Topography and Drainage |
The proposed site improvements are located within the existing mine plant site and offsite improvements include the rail loadout, soda ash stockpile and access haul road. In general, the site and surrounding area has rolling topography with bedrock exposed at or near the ground surface in upland and hill areas, and alluvial soils in lowlands and valleys.
|
196 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Several prominent rock outcrops are visible along the ridge that borders the site to the northwest of the existing plant site. Surface soil conditions throughout the site consist primarily of sandy silt and silty sand alluvial material with fractions of gravel and cobbles. The soils are rated as well drained soils per the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Drainage Class Map. The geotechnical investigation has classified the area with Camel Conglomerate. Vegetation across the site comprises sagebrush and grass typical of the region. The geotechnical investigation did not encounter groundwater during the borehole drilling. The topography increases in elevation from the rail loadout to the crushed ore stockpile location and drainage flows are generally directed to the west by sheet flow drainage.
15.6 | Surface Water Management |
The access road will maintain existing drainage patterns. An increase in surface flow is not anticipated since road surface treatments will be the same as existing conditions. Drainage swales along the access haul road will convey flows to maintain existing drainage patterns that flow to the west. The rail loadout will provide positive drainage away from the buildings and drainage will be controlled via surface drainage. Channels will be sized to handle the 50-year, 24-hour event.
15.7 | Facilities Layout |
M3 designed the processing facilities to tie into the existing crushing facility, which includes the primary crusher, secondary crushers and tertiary crushers, and taking advantage of the grading developed previously.
Figure 15-1 shows the overall project area map showing the mine, the heap leach area, the rail unloading facilities, and other infrastructure for the project. Figure 15-2 is a more detailed view of the overall process area.
|
197 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 15-1: Overall Project Area Map
|
198 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Figure 15-2: Overall Process Area Plan
|
199 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
16 | Market Studies and Contracts |
HMC has contracted M3 to complete the Feasibility Study for the heap leach expansion project.
Contracts for major consumables including fuel, lime, soda ash, cyanide and electricity are in place for the current operation. Transportation contracts are also in place for delivery of these consumable products. These contracts are renewed on an annual, biennial, triennial or quinquennial basis. The general terms and charges of these contracts are within industry standards.
Operating costs utilized in the feasibility study are based on recent costs or indications of long-term pricing from major suppliers during discussions with HMC and have been reviewed for consistency with past experience and industry pricing for these commodities, including any transportation or supply costs.
Gold and silver produced at Hycroft is expected to be sold as doré. Doré is shipped to refineries, refined and then sold at current spot prices.
Gold and silver markets are mature with reputable smelters and refiners located throughout the world. On June 30, 2019, the three-year trailing average gold and silver price per ounce was $1,273 and $16.53, respectively.
Gold is a principal metal traded at spot prices for immediate delivery and silver trading follows a pattern that is similar to that of gold. The market for gold trading typically spans 24 hours a day within multiple locations around the world (such as New York, London, Zurich, Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Dubai). Daily prices are quoted on the London market and New York spot market and can be found on www.kitco.com.
16.1 | Doré Marketing |
Gold and silver produced at Hycroft will be sold as doré. Doré is shipped to refineries, refined and then sold at current spot prices. Marketing of doré is expected to be arranged through continuing contractual relationships with major refineries for secure transportation of metal and refining. A contract with a refinery in Salt Lake City, Utah is in place through December 2020. The cost for shipping and refining doré included in the economic evaluation is in accordance with industry standards.
16.1.1 | Doré Sales |
Existing contracts formed the basis of refining and selling costs applied in the economic evaluation for gold and silver production sales. The principal commodities of gold and silver are freely traded at market prices, assuring the sale of any production.
16.1.2 | Doré Shipping and Treatment Charges |
Transportation and treatment contracts are currently in place and are reassessed on an annual or biennial basis. These arrangements are within industry standards and formed the basis of our economic evaluation.
|
200 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
17 | Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact |
17.1 | Permitting |
The Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the heap leach expansion that includes expanded heap leach, open pits, and waste rock facilities was completed in August 2012 with the BLM issuance of the Record of Decision authorizing the proposed action. State permits required for the operation of the heap leach expansion facilities were also received in 2012. The permits required to construct and operate the crushing system and to begin mill construction were received in 2012. The Plan of Operations for a rail spur, open pit expansion and processing complex, that includes a TMF and expanded Heap Leach Facility, was completed in December 2014, with the BLM issuance of the Record of Decision authorizing the proposed action received in January 2015. NV Energy submitted a Rights of Way application for the power line associated with the Hycroft Mill in March 2013. The BLM determined that action should be analyzed with the Hycroft Environmental Assessment (“EA”). Approval was received in December 2014.
Preliminary baseline work required for permitting of the long-term TMF and a deeper open pit, such as groundwater characterization, waste rock characterization, pit lake study and archaeological and biological surveys, began late in 2009. Field work has been completed for these programs. The study information was included in a Plan of Operations that was submitted to the BLM on April 30, 2014, requiring a supplemental EIS. Approvals are anticipated to be received in 2019.
A Plan of Operations amendment for construction of a new leach pad was submitted to, and approved by, the BLM in July 2019. A Water Pollution Control Permit modification was submitted to NDEP in March 2019 for the leach pad expansion and is under review. It is expected a decision for the water pollution control permit will be received by the end of 2019. Further expansion activities described in this Technical Report Summary, specifically the construction of additional heap leach pad space to accommodate the plans detailed in this report, will require multiple federal, state and local permits.
17.2 | Socio-Economic Impacts |
The existing Hycroft mine workforce lives mainly in Winnemucca (Humboldt County) and Lovelock (Pershing County); this will likely remain the same for the heap leach project detailed in this report.
Pershing and Humboldt counties are sparsely populated rural counties, with no large urban centers. Historically the development of the community in and around the City of Winnemucca has been based on the ranching, transportation, and mining industries. In particular, the last 30 years have seen a dramatic growth in population and the community as a result of precious metal exploration and development (Humboldt County, 2002). The populations in Humboldt County, Pershing County, and the State of Nevada all grew at relatively small and slow increments between 2000 and 2010.
An important part of the income of predominantly rural counties in Nevada is produced by sales tax and the net proceeds tax on mining activity within the county. Sales tax revenues are collected by the county in which delivery of the goods are taken. For the project, this would be Humboldt County.
The Hycroft personnel requirements will require close coordination with local government and businesses due to the needs of an increased regular workforce as well as the temporary staffing increases during construction periods. Dialogue with the local entities has revealed a positive response to the expansion of the mine due to current economic conditions as well as an overall acceptance of the mining industry.
Initial surveys indicate that the town of Winnemucca has the required infrastructure (shopping, emergency services, schools, etc.) to support the maximum workforce and dependents.
|
201 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
17.3 | Mine Closure & Reclamation |
Mine closure and reclamation will be performed in accordance with BLM and State of Nevada regulations and guidelines. The mining activities occur near a National Conservation Area and associated pioneer trails. Particular attention will be paid to leaving a post-mining land configuration that minimizes visual impact. The Company has posted surety bonds partially backed by restricted cash balances to cover its closure obligations. Future increases in reclamation bonding will either be through surety bonds supported by restricted cash balances or by letters of credit issued by banks.
The facility expansions have been and will continue to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed state and federal design criteria. Waste rock facilities are evaluated for their potential to release pollutants and monitored routinely, and in accordance with an approved waste rock management plan.
After operations cease, solution in heap leach facilities will be allowed to drain until the rate of flow can be passively managed through evaporation or a combination of evaporation and infiltration. Current studies are gathering the additional hydrology and geochemistry data for use in the development of final closure plans that meet the regulatory standards.
All buildings and facilities not identified for a post-mining use will be removed from the site during the salvage and site demolition phase. HMC has included reclamation and closure costs of $57.6 million in the economic evaluation.
|
202 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
18 | Capital and Operating Costs |
18.1 | Mine Operating and maintenance Costs |
Operating costs, including capital development costs, were developed on a unit cost and quantity basis utilizing historic cost data, first principles, vendor/contractor quotations, and similar operation comparisons.
Since 2011, more than $400 million has already been spent in provision of an expansion plan. Mine and maintenance infrastructure is in place to support the required level of planned mining, including:
· | Administration buildings (including mine operations and line-out offices); |
· | Truck Shops; |
· | Warehousing and laydown yards; |
· | Large Equipment Wash Facilities; and |
· | Fuel Islands. |
18.1.1 | Development Cost |
Past mining has developed several pits down to sustainable ore and full ore deliveries are obtainable from initial start of mining. There are 4 million tons of blasted inventory within the initial pit phases. All pit access required for mining is in-place. There are also 9 million tons of stockpiles from previous mining that are considered in the mine planning and are important to early production. There are no additional mine development costs required to meet the mine plan.
18.1.2 | Mining Cost |
Contract Mining costs were developed using budgetary quotes received for contract mining, which considered, labor requirements, quantity of equipment being used by period and calculated fuel, explosive, lubricant, and maintenance costs.
Owner Mining costs were developed using first principle estimation, which considered, labor requirements, quantity of equipment being used by period and calculated fuel, explosive, lubricant, and maintenance costs. Historical mining costs at Hycroft as well as benchmarking with other similar sized operations was considered.
Mining costs include Operations Management, Technical Services, Pit Operations and Maintenance, Geotechnical, and Pit de-watering costs. Life-of-mine unit costs are shown in Table 18-1.
Table 18-1: Average Mining Costs for the Life of Mine1
Period |
OPS
MGMT ($/t mined) |
DRILLING
($/t mined) |
BLASTING
($/ton mined) |
LOADING
($/t mined) |
HAULING
($/t mined) |
SUPPORT
($/t mined) |
MAINT
SHOP ($/t mined) |
MINE
TECH
SVCS2 ($/ton mined) |
CONTRACT
MINING ($/ton mined) |
TOTAL
($/ton mined) |
2019 | $0.07 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.26 | $0.58 | $1.06 | $0.46 | $0.14 | $0.00 | $2.57 |
2020 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.12 | $0.22 | $0.28 | $0.11 | $0.10 | $1.77 | $2.62 |
2021 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.07 | $2.07 | $2.14 |
2022 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.05 | $1.73 | $1.78 |
2023 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.04 | $1.50 | $1.54 |
2024 | $0.00 | $0.01 | $0.03 | $0.01 | $0.03 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.04 | $1.44 | $1.57 |
2025 | $0.02 | $0.07 | $0.12 | $0.10 | $0.16 | $0.09 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.84 | $1.50 |
2026 | $0.02 | $0.11 | $0.18 | $0.18 | $0.46 | $0.17 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.25 |
2027 | $0.02 | $0.18 | $0.26 | $0.27 | $0.40 | $0.28 | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.55 |
2028 | $0.02 | $0.16 | $0.21 | $0.22 | $0.53 | $0.18 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.44 |
2029 | $0.02 | $0.16 | $0.26 | $0.22 | $0.59 | $0.18 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.54 |
|
203 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Period |
OPS
MGMT ($/t mined) |
DRILLING
($/t mined) |
BLASTING
($/ton mined) |
LOADING
($/t mined) |
HAULING
($/t mined) |
SUPPORT
($/t mined) |
MAINT
SHOP ($/t mined) |
MINE
TECH
SVCS2 ($/ton mined) |
CONTRACT
MINING ($/ton mined) |
TOTAL
($/ton mined) |
2030 | $0.02 | $0.18 | $0.26 | $0.23 | $0.58 | $0.23 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.63 |
2031 | $0.02 | $0.17 | $0.26 | $0.23 | $0.44 | $0.19 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.43 |
2032 | $0.02 | $0.16 | $0.25 | $0.19 | $0.43 | $0.18 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.35 |
2033 | $0.02 | $0.15 | $0.24 | $0.21 | $0.38 | $0.20 | $0.08 | $0.03 | $0.00 | $1.32 |
2034 | $0.02 | $0.15 | $0.25 | $0.23 | $0.59 | $0.19 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.55 |
2035 | $0.02 | $0.15 | $0.26 | $0.22 | $0.53 | $0.23 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.53 |
2036 | $0.02 | $0.16 | $0.26 | $0.21 | $0.57 | $0.22 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.57 |
2037 | $0.02 | $0.19 | $0.26 | $0.19 | $0.64 | $0.21 | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.67 |
2038 | $0.02 | $0.16 | $0.22 | $0.18 | $0.77 | $0.19 | $0.08 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.66 |
2039 | $0.02 | $0.15 | $0.23 | $0.18 | $0.56 | $0.23 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.49 |
2040 | $0.02 | $0.17 | $0.24 | $0.22 | $0.50 | $0.19 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.46 |
2041 | $0.02 | $0.17 | $0.27 | $0.17 | $0.59 | $0.22 | $0.10 | $0.04 | $0.00 | $1.59 |
2042 | $0.03 | $0.18 | $0.26 | $0.24 | $0.85 | $0.27 | $0.12 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $1.99 |
2043 | $0.03 | $0.16 | $0.25 | $0.27 | $0.64 | $0.32 | $0.13 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $1.85 |
2044 | $0.03 | $0.14 | $0.25 | $0.23 | $0.57 | $0.32 | $0.13 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $1.72 |
2045 | $0.03 | $0.14 | $0.25 | $0.24 | $0.58 | $0.26 | $0.13 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $1.68 |
2046 | $0.03 | $0.16 | $0.26 | $0.30 | $0.76 | $0.32 | $0.14 | $0.06 | $0.00 | $2.01 |
2047 | $0.03 | $0.16 | $0.23 | $0.25 | $0.68 | $0.34 | $0.15 | $0.06 | $0.00 | $1.90 |
2048 | $0.03 | $0.18 | $0.27 | $0.23 | $0.69 | $0.29 | $0.14 | $0.06 | $0.00 | $1.88 |
2049 | $0.03 | $0.15 | $0.26 | $0.23 | $0.75 | $0.31 | $0.14 | $0.06 | $0.00 | $1.94 |
2050 | $0.02 | $0.14 | $0.27 | $0.19 | $0.85 | $0.19 | $0.07 | $0.03 | $0.00 | $1.75 |
2051 | $0.02 | $0.13 | $0.21 | $0.17 | $0.91 | $0.16 | $0.06 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $1.68 |
2052 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.11 | $0.82 | $0.14 | $0.06 | $0.01 | $0.00 | $1.16 |
LOM Avg | $0.02 | $0.14 | $0.22 | $0.19 | $0.52 | $0.20 | $0.09 | $0.04 | $0.20 | $1.61 |
1. | Zeroes do not indicate that there is no cost, rounding may be a factor. |
2. | Pit dewatering and geotechnical costs are included in Technical Services. |
Mine operations manpower is listed below in Table 18-2.
Table 18-2: Mine Operations Manpower
Mine Operations Staffing | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
2025
Onward (Avg) |
Open Pit Management | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 |
Technical Services | 6 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 16 |
Mine Operations | 42 | 42 | - | - | - | - | 168 |
Mine Maintenance | 34 | 34 | - | - | - | - | 74 |
Contract Miner1 | - | 76 | 119 | 181 | 273 | 273 | - |
Total | 88 | 169 | 131 | 196 | 288 | 288 | 277 |
1. | Years 2020 and 2025 each include half a year of contract mining. |
18.2 | Process Plant Operating & Maintenance Costs |
The process plant operating costs are summarized by areas of the plant. Table 18-3 shows the life-of-mine cost for the operation.
|
204 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 18-3: Process Operating Cost Summary
Process Area | LOM (000s) | $/ore ton |
Crushing | $ 546,774 | $ 0.48 |
Rehandle | $ 36,553 | $ 0.03 |
Heap Leach | $ 3,324,021 | $ 2.93 |
Merrill-Crowe/Refinery | $ 558,552 | $ 0.49 |
Lab & Met Services | $ 47,980 | $ 0.04 |
Ancillaries | $ 29,477 | $ 0.03 |
Total Process | $ 4,566,624 | $ 4.00 |
Heap Leach Ore Tons | 1,133,060 |
18.2.1 | Crushed Ore Re-handle |
Costs to re-handle crushed ore from the crushed ore stockpile to the leach pads have been estimated at $0.45/t, which includes all loading, hauling, and support equipment costs to move crushed ore from the stockpile and stack on the leach pad. This cost is only incurred until the fine ore convey & stack system is constructed and operational at the beginning of Year 6.
18.2.2 | Process Labor & Fringes |
Process labor costs were derived from a staffing plan and applying prevailing daily or annual labor rates in the area. Labor rates and fringe benefits for employees include retirement plans, insurance and all applicable social security benefits as well as all applicable payroll taxes. The staffing plan summary and gross annual labor costs are shown in Table 18-4 below.
Table 18-4: Average Annual Process Plant Labor (Typical Year – Year 7)
Staff | Annual Cost | |
Process Administration | 16 | $1,989,105 |
Process Operations | 64 | $5,572,644 |
Process Maintenance | 33 | $3,306,846 |
Total Process Operations | 113 | $10,868,595 |
18.2.3 | Electrical Power |
Power consumption was based on the equipment list connected kW, adjusted for operating time per day and anticipated operating load level. The overall power rate as provided by HMC is estimated at $0.056 per kWh. A summary of the annual power consumption and cost are shown in Table 18-5 below.
Table 18-5: Average Annual Power Cost Summary* (Typical Year – Year 7)
Area No | Area | Annual kWh | Annual Cost |
100 | Primary Crusher | 6,143,377 | $344,029 |
150 | Coarse Ore Stacking & Reclaim | 45,836,031 | $2,566,818 |
300 | Heap Leach Ore Stacking | 37,537,420 | $2,102,096 |
350 | Heap Leach | 4,250,568 | $238,032 |
550 | Merrill-Crowe | 16,036,942 | $898,069 |
650 | Water Systems | 4,666,283 | $261,312 |
800 | Reagents | 3,272,965 | $183,286 |
810 | Soda Ash Rail Unloading & Storage | 986,396 | $55,238 |
Total | 118,729,982 | $ 6,648,879 |
|
205 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
18.2.4 | Reagents |
Consumption rates were determined from the metallurgical test data. Budgetary quotations for reagents were received from local sources where available with an allowance for freight to site, or based on actual purchases.
A summary of process reagent consumption and costs are included in Table 18-6.
Table 18-6: Reagents Consumption Summary
18.2.5 | Maintenance Wear Parts and Consumables |
Wear items (liners and conveyor belts) were based on industry practice for the crusher and grinding operations. These consumptions rates and unit prices are shown in Table 18-7 below.
Table 18-7: Wear Items
Area | Consumption Rates | Unit Price, $/ton crushed | |
Primary Crusher – Liners | lb/ton crushed | 1.0 | $ 0.03 |
Secondary Crusher – Liners | lb/ton crushed | 1.0 | $ 0.06 |
Tertiary Crusher - Liners | lb/ton crushed | 1.0 | $ 0.06 |
An allowance was made to cover the cost of maintenance of all items not specifically identified and the cost of maintenance of the facilities. The allowance was calculated for each project area as a percentage of the tangible equipment cost.
18.2.6 | Process Supplies & Services |
Allowances were provided in the process for outside consultants, outside contractors, vehicle maintenance, and miscellaneous supplies. The allowances were estimated using M3’s information from other operations and projects.
18.3 | Capital Cost Estimate |
18.3.1 | Mine Initial Capital Cost |
All mining related infrastructure is already in place. All mine development for access and waste stripping was done as part of the historic mining completed prior to 2015. Initial mining through Year 5 is completed using either existing mine fleets at site, or contract mining, and minimal initial capital is required for mine equipment. Other mine related capital costs are related to de-watering infrastructure. These costs are shown in Table 21-8.
|
206 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 18-8: Dewatering Capital
De-watering | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
Pilot Hole / Hydraulic Testing | - | $827,781 | - | $560,188 | $1,095,375 |
Dewatering Well Construction | - | $1,149,045 | - | $781,030 | $1,517,060 |
Dewatering Well Pumping Equip./Installation | - | $390,603 | - | $260,402 | $520,804 |
Pumping Equipment Spares | - | $130,201 | - | - | - |
Dewatering Well Replacement | - | - | - | - | - |
Pipeline & Booster Pump Construction | - | $710,493 | - | $72,114 | $25,631 |
Lateral Depressurization Drainholes | - | - | $313,483 | $313,483 | - |
Contingency | - | $641,625 | $62,697 | $397,443 | $631,774 |
Total | $0 | $3,849,748 | $376,180 | $2,384,660 | $3,790,644 |
SRK completed the capital cost estimate for mine dewatering. The costs presented are based on previous experience in the construction and operation of the prototype dewatering well, as well as knowledge and experience with similar facilities and work in similar locations. Dewatering capital costs are subject to a contingency to address uncertainties and risk as described in Section 13.6. However, should significant changes in the conceptual hydrogeology of the local groundwater system be identified, active dewatering requirements and/or residual passive inflow may be underestimated, along with the associated capital costs.
18.3.2 | Initial Capital Costs |
Table 18-9 shows a summary of the estimated initial capital expressed in US dollars.
Table 18-9: Estimated Initial Capital Cost (Year 1-5; 000s)
Description |
Estimated
by |
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
Direct & Indirect Costs | ||||||
Site General | M3 | - | - | $4,396.9 | - | - |
Crushing & Conveying | M3 | - | - | $23,285.2 | $22,450.1 | $60,991.5 |
Leach Pad & Pond Construction | Newfields | $31,950.9 | $18,425.1 | - | $455.0 | - |
Reagents | M3 | - | - | - | - | $18,145.6 |
Rail Unloading & Storage | M3 | - | - | - | $10,792.2 | $21,548.2 |
Dewatering | SRK | - | $3,849.7 | $376.2 | $2,384.7 | $3,790.6 |
Mobile Equipment | Hycroft | - | $312.0 | - | - | - |
Subtotal Direct & Indirect Costs | $31,950.9 | $22,586.8 | $28,058.3 | $36,082.0 | $104,475.9 | |
Owner’s Cost | ||||||
Total Owner’s Cost1 | Hycroft | $5,048.3 | $1,100.0 | $500.0 | $500.0 | $500.0 |
TOTAL | $36,999.2 | $23,686.8 | $28,558.3 | $35,582.0 | $104,975.9 |
1. | Includes $3.1 million for final crusher payments to vendor to restart the system during the first half of 2019. |
Newfields completed the Phase 1 leach pad, pond, and related solution management infrastructure capital estimate. Phase 1 pad expansion includes 8.9 million square feet of pad plus process ponds and solution piping. The Phase 1 leach pad design and associated cost estimate was at Issue-for-Construction (IFC) level to support permitting activities.
The capital cost estimates prepared by M3 are based on cost quotations on major equipment, including secondary and tertiary crushers, grasshopper conveyors and stacker. Material takeoffs were performed for concrete, steel, electrical, piping and instrumentation, for all installations designed by M3. Unit rates for labor, equipment rental, and materials of construction were developed using recent construction projects managed by M3, as well as on published industry rates.
Owner’s costs were provided by Hycroft Mining.
|
207 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
18.3.3 | Assumptions |
The capital projects are assumed to be constructed in a conventional EPCM format. HMC will retain a qualified contractor to design projects and act as its agent to bid and procure materials and equipment, bid and award construction contracts, and manage the construction of the facilities.
HMC, through its EPCM agent, will order major material supplies (e.g., structural and mechanical steelwork) as well as bulk orders (e.g., piping and electrical). These will be issued to construction contractors on site using strict inventory control.
“Initial Capital” is defined as all capital required to acquire and put into operation all facilities and equipment to achieve a steady-state mining and processing rate as detailed in this feasibility study. The initial capital costs include owner’s costs, new heap leach pad construction, crushing and conveying system improvements, leach pad conveying and stacking system, new reagent island, mobile equipment, rail spur unloading and storage facilities and mine dewatering costs through to the end of Year 5. Capital costs predicted for later years are carried as sustaining capital in the financial model.
18.3.4 | Sunk Costs |
Hycroft Mining has been increasing their mining and processing capacity since 2010. A new 21,500 gpm Merrill-Crowe plant, three-stage crushing plant, additional carbon columns, pumping and piping infrastructure and increased power capacity have been implemented. Due to the ongoing symbiotic nature of the operation, the feasibility study considers all of those costs spent before June 30, 2019 on the items noted above to be sunk costs. Therefore, the capital cost and economic returns presented in the financial analysis is on a go-forward basis only. Sunk costs are not included in the economic return of the project presented herein.
18.3.5 | Estimate Accuracy |
The accuracy of this estimate for those items identified in the scope-of work is estimated to be within the range of plus 15% to minus 15%; i.e., the cost could be 15% higher than the estimate or it could be 15% lower. Accuracy is an issue separate from contingency, the latter accounts for undeveloped scope and insufficient data (e.g., geotechnical data).
18.3.6 | Contingency |
Contingency for this estimate is 10% and is intended to cover unallocated costs from lack of detailing in scope items. It is a compilation of aggregate risk from estimated cost areas. Contingency is not simply a “buffer” to cover estimate inaccuracy. Properly calculated contingency will be spent.
18.3.7 | Documents |
Documents available to the estimators include the following:
|
208 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 18-10: Documents Available to Estimators
Document | Yes/No |
Design Criteria | No |
Equipment List | Yes |
Equipment Specifications | No |
Construction Specifications | No |
Flowsheets | Yes |
P&IDs | Yes |
General Arrangements | Yes |
Architectural Drawings | No |
Civil Drawings | No |
Concrete Drawings | No |
Structural Steel Drawings | No |
Mechanical Drawings | No |
Electrical One-Lines | No |
Instrumentation Schematics | No |
Instrument Log | No |
Pipeline List | Yes |
Valve List | Yes |
Cable and Conduit Schedule | No |
|
209 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
19 | Economic Analysis |
19.1 | Introduction |
The financial evaluation of the project comprises the determination of the net present value (NPV) at a discount rate of 5%, the internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period (time in years to recapture the initial capital investment). Annual cash flow projections are estimated over the life of the mine based on the estimates of capital expenditures and production cost and sales revenue. The sales revenue is based on the production of gold and silver bullion, using the recently executed refinery contract. The estimates of capital expenditures and site production costs have been developed specifically for this project and have been presented in earlier sections of this report.
19.2 | Mine Production Statistics |
Mine production is reported as ore from the mining operation. The production figures were obtained from the mine plan as presented earlier in this report.
The life of mine ore and waste quantities and ore grade are summarized in Table 19-1 below.
Table 19-1: Life of Mine Ore, Waste Quantities, and Ore Grade
Tons (000’) | Gold opt | Silver opt | |
Sulfide Heap Leach Ore | 1,065,729 | 0.011 | 0.429 |
ROM Heap Leach Ore | 43,375 | 0.008 | 0.219 |
Crushed Oxide Heap Leach Ore | 23,956 | 0.010 | 0.626 |
Total Heap Leach Ore | 1,133,060 | 0.011 | 0.425 |
Waste | 1,228,686 | ||
Stockpile material | 196,155 | ||
Total | 2,557,900 |
19.3 | Plant Production Statistics |
The major components of the process facility are crushing, heap leach and Merrill-Crowe. The product will be gold and silver doré.
The estimated metal recoveries are presented in Table 19-2.
Table 19-2: Average Life of Mine Metal Recovery Factors
Gold % | Silver % | |
Heap Leach Ore | 65 | 71 |
Estimated life of mine gold and silver production is presented in the table below.
Table 19-3: Life of Mine Metal Production
Gold, kOz | Silver, kOz | |
Heap Leach Ore | 7,868 | 346,519 |
19.3.1 | Refinery Factor |
The refining and shipping charges calculated in the financial evaluation are presented in the table below.
|
210 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 19-4: Refining Factors
Gold and Silver Bullion | |
Payable Gold | 99.9 % |
Payable Silver | 99.5 % |
Refining Charge ($/oz.) | $0.50 |
Deleterious Elements Charge ($/oz.) | $0.25 |
Melt Loss % | 0.2% |
Transportation Charges ($/shipment) | $1,800 |
19.4 | Capital Expenditure |
19.4.1 | Initial Capital |
The financial indicators have been determined with 100% equity financing of the initial capital, that is, no borrowing costs have been included in the analysis. Any acquisition cost or expenditures prior to 2019 have been treated as sunk cost and have not been included in the analysis.
The total initial capital in the financial model is $230.8 million.
19.4.2 | Sustaining Capital |
A schedule of capital cost expenditures during the production period was estimated and included in the financial analysis. The total life of mine sustaining capital is estimated to be $537.6 million. This capital will be expended during a 26-year period at an average rate of $17.9 million per year.
19.4.3 | Working Capital |
A working capital allowance of $2.2 million for warehouse inventories is assumed in the first five years.
19.4.4 | Salvage Value |
No salvage value allowance has been considered in the cash flow analysis.
19.5 | Revenue |
Annual revenue is determined by applying estimated metal prices to the annual payable metal estimated for each operating year. Sales prices have been applied to all life of mine production without escalation or hedging. The revenue is the gross value of payable metals before refining charges and transportation charges. Metal sales prices used in the evaluation are $1,300.00/ounce for gold and $17.33/ounce for silver.
19.6 | Operating Cost |
The average cash operating cost over the life of the mine is estimated to be $8.49 per ton of heap leach ore processed. Cash operating cost includes mine operations, process plant operations, general administrative cost, refining charges, shipping charges, royalties and net proceeds tax.
|
211 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 19-5: Operating Cost
Operating Cost | Cost |
Mining /ton mined | $1.61 |
Mining /ton processed | $3.64 |
Heap Leach Process /ton processed | $4.01 |
General Administration /ton processed | $0.45 |
Treatment Charges/ ton processed | $0.23 |
Net Proceeds Tax/ton processed | $0.17 |
Transportation/ton processed | $0.01 |
Crofoot Royalty | $0.00 |
Total Operating Cost /ton processed | $8.52 |
1. | Zeroes do not indicate that no cost exists, however rounding may be a factor. Similarly, the total may not foot due to rounding. |
19.7 | Reclamation & Closure |
An allowance for the cost of reclamation and closure of the property has been included in the cash flow projection of $57.6 million to be expended at the end of the mine life over a two-year period.
19.8 | Taxation (Federal Income Tax) |
The cash income tax projections have been provided by HMC at a 21% statutory rate and are estimated to be $615.2 million for the life of the mine, based on depreciation of assets, recovery factors, metal prices indicated in this report and existing tax account balances of the Company.
On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Act”) was enacted. One component to the Act was to amend how a net operating loss (“NOL”) may be utilized. NOL’s generated prior to January 1, 2018 may be carried back 2 years, carried forward 20 years and utilized to offset up to 100% of pretax income. Because these NOL’s can be used to offset 100% of pretax income we have labeled them as “Super NOL” in the model. The Act limited the amount of pretax income that NOL’s generated in periods beginning after December 31, 2017 may be used to offset. NOL’s generated after December 31, 2017 may only offset 80% of pretax income and can no longer be carried back, but they can be carried forward indefinitely. NOL’s generated after December 31, 2017 are labeled as “New NOL” in the model. Based on the amendments in the Act to NOL’s, the model uses all Super NOL’s first and then uses the New NOL’s to offset up to 80% of pretax income.
19.9 | Project Financing |
HMC has engaged an investment banker to advise and execute on financing and/or investment options for the project capital requirements.
19.10 | Net Cash Flow After Tax |
Net Cash Flow after Tax amounts to $5.1 billion for the life of the mine.
19.11 | NPV and IRR |
The economic analysis indicates that the project has an internal rate of return (IRR) of 148.6%, a payback period of 2.5 years, and an NPV of $2.1 billion at a 5% discount rate.
|
212 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
19.12 Financial Model
The detailed financial model is shown in Table 19-6.
|
213 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Table 19-6: Financial Model
Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Oxidation | ||||||||||||||||||
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | ||
LOM | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 | Year 11 | Year 12 | Year 13 | Year 14 | Year 15 | Year 16 | Year 17 | |
Mine Plan | ||||||||||||||||||
Sulfide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 970,741 | 4,488 | 10,385 | 16,132 | 23,332 | 24,000 | 20,088 | 33,546 | 28,572 | 34,426 | 35,960 | 36,000 | 35,106 | 35,198 | 35,739 | 27,552 | 35,975 | 35,980 |
ROM Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 35,375 | - | 1,822 | 5,278 | 3,607 | 4,689 | - | 4,915 | 132 | 2,025 | 258 | 311 | 4,578 | 827 | 1,376 | 90 | 753 | 750 |
Crushed Oxide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 23,956 | - | 355 | 1,868 | 668 | - | 14,544 | 1,272 | 104 | 1,574 | 40 | - | 894 | 802 | 261 | 60 | 25 | 20 |
Stockpile Rehandle (ktons) | 102,988 | - | - | - | - | - | 1,367 | 1,182 | 7,325 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8,388 | - | - |
Total Ore tons mined (ktons) | 1,133,060 | 4,488 | 12,562 | 23,278 | 27,607 | 28,689 | 36,000 | 40,915 | 36,132 | 38,025 | 36,258 | 36,311 | 40,578 | 36,827 | 37,376 | 36,090 | 36,753 | 36,750 |
Waste (ktons) | 1,228,686 | - | 4,142 | 5,934 | 25,283 | 31,534 | 40,324 | 36,959 | 54,597 | 37,564 | 50,316 | 47,671 | 50,600 | 55,646 | 47,993 | 65,322 | 48,545 | 47,122 |
Stockpile (ktons) | 196,155 | - | 2,539 | 6,334 | 7,110 | 14,379 | 10,043 | 8,308 | 1,596 | 9,411 | 13,426 | 16,018 | 8,822 | 7,527 | 14,631 | 6,976 | 14,703 | 16,128 |
Total tons mined (ktons) | 2,557,900 | 4,488 | 19,244 | 35,546 | 60,000 | 74,602 | 86,367 | 86,182 | 92,325 | 85,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 100,000 | 108,388 | 100,000 | 100,000 |
Strip Ratio | 1.17 | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
Process Plan | ||||||||||||||||||
Heap Leach Ore ROM (ktons) | 43,375 | - | 1,822 | 5,278 | 3,607 | 4,689 | - | 4,915 | 132 | 2,025 | 258 | 311 | 4,578 | 827 | 1,376 | 90 | 753 | 750 |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.008 | - | 0.017 | 0.010 | 0.008 | 0.009 | - | 0.007 | 0.011 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.219 | - | 0.210 | 0.241 | 0.232 | 0.278 | - | 0.230 | 0.164 | 0.163 | 0.406 | 0.116 | 0.282 | 0.272 | 0.216 | 0.214 | 0.130 | 0.288 |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 327 | - | 32 | 50 | 29 | 41 | - | 32 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 37 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 9,480 | - | 383 | 1,271 | 837 | 1,302 | - | 1,130 | 22 | 329 | 105 | 36 | 1,290 | 224 | 297 | 19 | 98 | 216 |
Crushed Oxide Ore (ktons) | 23,956 | - | 355 | 1,868 | 668 | - | 14,544 | 1,272 | 104 | 1,574 | 40 | - | 894 | 802 | 261 | 60 | 25 | 20 |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.010 | - | 0.031 | 0.012 | 0.013 | - | 0.008 | 0.015 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 0.007 | - | 0.020 | 0.010 | 0.007 | 0.003 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.626 | - | 0.606 | 0.660 | 0.828 | - | 0.506 | 0.961 | 0.686 | 0.683 | 2.364 | - | 1.210 | 1.001 | 1.544 | 2.017 | 1.149 | 1.507 |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 243 | - | 11 | 23 | 9 | - | 119 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 0 | - | 18 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 15,000 | - | 215 | 1,233 | 553 | - | 7,366 | 1,223 | 71 | 1,075 | 95 | - | 1,082 | 803 | 403 | 121 | 29 | 30 |
Sulfide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 1,065,729 | 4,488 | 10,385 | 16,132 | 23,332 | 24,000 | 21,456 | 34,728 | 35,896 | 34,426 | 35,960 | 36,000 | 35,106 | 35,198 | 35,739 | 35,940 | 35,975 | 35,980 |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.014 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.429 | 0.113 | 0.297 | 0.398 | 0.446 | 0.352 | 0.489 | 0.497 | 0.206 | 0.588 | 0.600 | 0.668 | 0.446 | 0.605 | 0.284 | 0.322 | 0.327 | 0.330 |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 11,427 | 80 | 145 | 182 | 243 | 312 | 279 | 355 | 412 | 327 | 480 | 396 | 369 | 331 | 435 | 312 | 323 | 336 |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 456,920 | 506 | 3,086 | 6,415 | 10,417 | 8,456 | 10,482 | 17,275 | 7,393 | 20,257 | 21,591 | 24,059 | 15,642 | 21,284 | 10,151 | 11,566 | 11,774 | 11,890 |
Total Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 1,133,060 | 4,488 | 12,562 | 23,278 | 27,607 | 28,689 | 36,000 | 40,915 | 36,132 | 38,025 | 36,258 | 36,311 | 40,578 | 36,827 | 37,376 | 36,090 | 36,753 | 36,750 |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.011 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.009 | 0.012 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.425 | 0.113 | 0.293 | 0.383 | 0.428 | 0.340 | 0.496 | 0.480 | 0.207 | 0.570 | 0.601 | 0.664 | 0.444 | 0.606 | 0.290 | 0.324 | 0.324 | 0.330 |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 11,997 | 80 | 187 | 255 | 280 | 353 | 398 | 407 | 415 | 357 | 482 | 398 | 424 | 344 | 446 | 313 | 329 | 342 |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 481,400 | 506 | 3,685 | 8,918 | 11,807 | 9,759 | 17,849 | 19,628 | 7,486 | 21,661 | 21,791 | 24,095 | 18,014 | 22,311 | 10,851 | 11,707 | 11,901 | 12,136 |
Gold Recovery % | 65% | 55% | 37% | 64% | 68% | 55% | 60% | 49% | 49% | 101% | 48% | 67% | 63% | 66% | 70% | 85% | 59% | 60% |
Silver Recovery % | 71% | 78% | 50% | 29% | 66% | 59% | 46% | 42% | 123% | 55% | 59% | 58% | 83% | 45% | 148% | 71% | 64% | 66% |
Recovered Gold (kozs) - From Leach Model | 7,868 | 44 | 70 | 164 | 190 | 196 | 238 | 202 | 203 | 361 | 231 | 266 | 269 | 227 | 313 | 267 | 196 | 206 |
Recovered Silver (kozs) - From Leach Model | 346,519 | 399 | 1,858 | 2,641 | 7,855 | 5,795 | 8,326 | 8,375 | 9,242 | 12,071 | 12,844 | 14,040 | 15,070 | 10,195 | 16,207 | 8,356 | 7,709 | 8,010 |
Payable Metal (kozs) | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold | 7,845 | 44 | 70 | 163 | 189 | 196 | 238 | 201 | 202 | 359 | 230 | 265 | 268 | 227 | 312 | 267 | 195 | 206 |
Silver | 344,097 | 396 | 1,845 | 2,623 | 7,800 | 5,754 | 8,268 | 8,316 | 9,178 | 11,986 | 12,754 | 13,942 | 14,965 | 10,124 | 16,094 | 8,298 | 7,655 | 7,954 |
Metal Prices | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold ($/oz) | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 |
Silver ($/oz) | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 |
Cash Inflows ($000) | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold | $10,198,352 | $57,347 | $91,056 | $212,052 | $246,224 | $254,257 | $309,107 | $261,440 | $262,644 | $467,317 | $299,521 | $344,553 | $348,811 | $294,699 | $405,065 | $346,623 | $253,405 | $267,506 |
Silver | $5,963,198 | $6,859 | $31,968 | $45,448 | $135,170 | $99,720 | $143,284 | $144,117 | $159,050 | $207,723 | $221,023 | $241,615 | $259,345 | $175,451 | $278,906 | $143,798 | $132,669 | $137,845 |
Total Cash Inflows | $16,161,550 | $64,206 | $123,024 | $257,500 | $381,394 | $353,976 | $452,390 | $405,557 | $421,694 | $675,041 | $520,544 | $586,168 | $608,156 | $470,150 | $683,971 | $490,421 | $386,074 | $405,351 |
Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Oxidation | ||||||||||||||||||
2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | |
Year 18 | Year 19 | Year 20 | Year 21 | Year 22 | Year 23 | Year 24 | Year 25 | Year 26 | Year 27 | Year 28 | Year 29 | Year 30 | Year 31 | Year 32 | Year 33 | Year 34 | Year 35 | |
Mine Plan | ||||||||||||||||||
Sulfide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 35,990 | 35,926 | 18,358 | 24,278 | 26,403 | 32,695 | 35,969 | 30,673 | 30,946 | 31,022 | 32,607 | 26,226 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 35,965 | 29,207 | - | - |
ROM Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 1,936 | 127 | 80 | 1,090 | 628 | 28 | 54 | 9 | 9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Crushed Oxide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 10 | 74 | 120 | 370 | 357 | - | 31 | 343 | 127 | - | - | - | - | - | 35 | - | - | - |
Stockpile Rehandle (ktons) | - | - | 17,522 | 11,353 | 9,240 | 3,305 | - | 4,984 | 4,926 | 4,978 | 3,393 | 9,774 | - | - | - | 6,793 | 8,457 | - |
Total Ore tons mined (ktons) | 37,936 | 36,127 | 36,080 | 37,090 | 36,628 | 36,028 | 36,054 | 36,009 | 36,009 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 8,457 | - |
Waste (ktons) | 46,245 | 44,811 | 63,225 | 56,554 | 55,644 | 50,963 | 37,677 | 30,872 | 31,181 | 29,811 | 27,388 | 23,758 | 26,324 | 19,088 | 15,117 | 20,475 | - | - |
Stockpile (ktons) | 15,819 | 4,062 | 3,216 | 2,709 | 1,968 | 1,314 | 1,193 | 468 | 158 | 228 | 5 | 16 | 1,492 | 5,076 | 181 | 300 | - | - |
Total tons mined (ktons) | 100,000 | 85,000 | 102,522 | 96,353 | 94,240 | 88,305 | 74,925 | 67,350 | 67,348 | 66,039 | 63,393 | 59,774 | 63,816 | 60,164 | 51,297 | 56,775 | 8,457 | - |
Strip Ratio | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | - | - |
Process Plan | ||||||||||||||||||
Heap Leach Ore ROM (ktons) | 1,936 | 127 | 80 | 1,090 | 628 | 28 | 54 | 9 | 9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8,000 | - |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.006 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.005 | - |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.202 | 0.413 | 0.307 | 0.189 | 0.223 | 0.080 | 0.069 | 0.068 | 0.081 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.137 | - |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 13 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 37 | - |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 391 | 53 | 25 | 206 | 140 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1,099 | - |
Crushed Oxide Ore (ktons) | 10 | 74 | 120 | 370 | 357 | - | 31 | 343 | 127 | - | - | - | - | - | 35 | - | - | - |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.022 | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.009 | 0.009 | - | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.010 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.012 | - | - | - |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 2.050 | 1.213 | 0.962 | 0.649 | 0.480 | - | 0.080 | 0.084 | 0.090 | - | - | - | - | - | 0.598 | - | - | - |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | - | 1 | 4 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 0 | - | - | - |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 21 | 90 | 115 | 240 | 171 | - | 3 | 29 | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | 21 | - | - | - |
Sulfide Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 35,990 | 35,926 | 35,880 | 35,630 | 35,643 | 36,000 | 35,969 | 35,657 | 35,873 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 35,965 | 36,000 | 457 | - |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.005 | - |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.415 | 0.649 | 0.640 | 0.358 | 0.334 | 0.541 | 0.361 | 0.254 | 0.293 | 0.290 | 0.204 | 0.180 | 0.273 | 0.429 | 0.770 | 0.818 | 0.123 | - |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 439 | 506 | 311 | 309 | 311 | 455 | 382 | 375 | 373 | 378 | 407 | 352 | 388 | 394 | 400 | 328 | 2 | - |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 14,951 | 23,334 | 22,953 | 12,742 | 11,919 | 19,487 | 12,981 | 9,065 | 10,503 | 10,425 | 7,326 | 6,488 | 9,837 | 15,439 | 27,706 | 29,462 | 56 | - |
Total Heap Leach Ore (ktons) | 37,936 | 36,127 | 36,080 | 37,090 | 36,628 | 36,028 | 36,054 | 36,009 | 36,009 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 36,000 | 8,457 | - |
Gold Grade (oz/t) | 0.012 | 0.014 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.005 | - |
Silver Grade (oz/t) | 0.405 | 0.650 | 0.640 | 0.356 | 0.334 | 0.541 | 0.360 | 0.253 | 0.292 | 0.290 | 0.204 | 0.180 | 0.273 | 0.429 | 0.770 | 0.818 | 0.137 | - |
Contained Gold (kozs) | 453 | 507 | 312 | 319 | 317 | 455 | 383 | 379 | 374 | 378 | 407 | 352 | 388 | 394 | 401 | 328 | 39 | - |
Contained Silver (kozs) | 15,363 | 23,476 | 23,093 | 13,188 | 12,230 | 19,489 | 12,987 | 9,094 | 10,515 | 10,425 | 7,326 | 6,488 | 9,837 | 15,439 | 27,727 | 29,462 | 1,155 | - |
Gold Recovery % | 48% | 51% | 96% | 67% | 103% | 46% | 65% | 60% | 60% | 58% | 55% | 108% | 56% | 68% | 67% | 65% | 511% | 0% |
Silver Recovery % | 51% | 41% | 64% | 122% | 111% | 46% | 84% | 85% | 57% | 64% | 91% | 117% | 51% | 56% | 46% | 121% | 1517% | 0% |
Recovered Gold (kozs) - From Leach Model | 219 | 259 | 300 | 214 | 328 | 209 | 249 | 229 | 225 | 219 | 225 | 382 | 216 | 269 | 268 | 214 | 200 | - |
Recovered Silver (kozs) - From Leach Model | 7,926 | 9,740 | 14,891 | 16,188 | 13,650 | 8,968 | 11,026 | 7,812 | 6,075 | 6,669 | 6,703 | 7,661 | 5,042 | 8,671 | 12,904 | 35,947 | 17,653 | - |
Payable Metal (kozs) | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold | 218 | 258 | 299 | 213 | 327 | 209 | 248 | 229 | 224 | 218 | 225 | 381 | 215 | 268 | 267 | 213 | 200 | - |
Silver | 7,871 | 9,672 | 14,787 | 16,075 | 13,555 | 8,905 | 10,949 | 7,757 | 6,033 | 6,622 | 6,656 | 7,607 | 5,007 | 8,611 | 12,814 | 35,696 | 17,529 | - |
Metal Prices | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold ($/oz) | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 | $1,300.00 |
Silver ($/oz) | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 | $17.33 |
Cash Inflows ($000) | ||||||||||||||||||
Gold | $283,863 | $335,574 | $389,145 | $276,811 | $424,573 | $271,398 | $322,850 | $297,287 | $291,578 | $283,548 | $292,077 | $495,331 | $279,919 | $348,791 | $347,435 | $276,767 | $259,778 | $0 |
Silver | $136,399 | $167,618 | $256,263 | $278,573 | $234,906 | $154,327 | $189,742 | $134,429 | $104,552 | $114,760 | $115,349 | $131,830 | $86,771 | $149,224 | $222,071 | $618,607 | $303,785 | $0 |
Total Cash Inflows | $420,262 | $503,192 | $645,408 | $555,384 | $659,479 | $425,725 | $512,592 | $431,717 | $396,131 | $398,308 | $407,426 | $627,161 | $366,690 | $498,015 | $569,506 | $895,374 | $563,562 | $0 |
|
214 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Oxidation | ||||||||||||||||||
2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | 2031 | 2032 | 2033 | 2034 | 2035 | ||
LOM | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 | Year 11 | Year 12 | Year 13 | Year 14 | Year 15 | Year 16 | Year 17 | |
Cash Outflows ($000) | ||||||||||||||||||
Operating Cost | ||||||||||||||||||
Mining | $4,128,218 | $11,556 | $50,371 | $76,080 | $106,625 | $114,835 | $135,339 | $129,328 | $115,798 | $132,008 | $143,939 | $154,328 | $163,268 | $143,051 | $135,418 | $143,188 | $155,266 | $152,984 |
Heap Leach | $3,324,021 | $9,967 | $32,949 | $52,949 | $59,089 | $85,968 | $92,984 | $113,920 | $110,105 | $116,546 | $116,451 | $109,639 | $98,585 | $126,333 | $122,162 | $104,947 | $111,421 | $107,707 |
Crushing Costs | $546,774 | $3,726 | $9,610 | $11,292 | $12,712 | $12,712 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 |
Ore Rehandle (Crusher Feed & Crushed Rehandle) | $36,553 | $2,020 | $4,833 | $8,100 | $10,800 | $10,800 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Merrill Crowe/Refinery | $558,552 | $3,155 | $8,781 | $9,772 | $15,456 | $13,530 | $15,603 | $15,615 | $16,445 | $19,289 | $19,909 | $21,083 | $22,070 | $17,377 | $23,195 | $15,657 | $14,975 | $15,272 |
Lab & Met Services | $47,980 | $160 | $497 | $646 | $1,182 | $1,543 | $1,662 | $1,526 | $1,817 | $1,571 | $2,018 | $2,017 | $1,903 | $2,003 | $1,988 | $2,246 | $2,005 | $2,005 |
Ancillaries | $29,477 | $33 | $79 | $132 | $176 | $176 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 |
Site G&A | $507,184 | $5,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $12,500 | $14,684 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 |
Treatment & Refining Charges | $265,791 | $332 | $1,446 | $2,103 | $6,033 | $4,493 | $6,423 | $6,432 | $7,084 | $9,323 | $9,806 | $10,729 | $11,505 | $7,817 | $12,390 | $6,468 | $5,929 | $6,162 |
Transportation | $6,271 | $94 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 |
Warehouse Inventory | $0 | $52 | $223 | $412 | $695 | $864 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Crofoot Royalty | $5,110 | $17 | $0 | $1,417 | $3,240 | $436 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Net Proceeds Tax | $192,288 | $20 | $0 | $2,310 | $4,919 | $2,732 | $4,247 | $1,756 | $1,585 | $9,809 | $3,525 | $6,040 | $7,205 | $2,546 | $11,237 | $4,741 | $1,348 | $1,989 |
Income Taxes | $615,247 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $4,463 | $19,711 | $10,158 | $44,836 | $18,916 | $5,378 | $7,934 |
Total Operating Cost | $10,263,466 | $36,132 | $118,976 | $175,400 | $233,614 | $262,961 | $292,467 | $304,786 | $289,043 | $324,756 | $331,859 | $344,510 | $360,455 | $345,495 | $387,436 | $332,373 | $332,530 | $330,262 |
Other Costs | ||||||||||||||||||
Reclamation & Closure Costs | $57,602 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Total Other Costs | $57,602 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Capital Expenditures | ||||||||||||||||||
Geotechnical/Metallurgical Drilling | $1,238 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,238 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Leach Pad & Pond Construction | $167,396 | $31,951 | $18,425 | $0 | $455 | $0 | $22,500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $455 | $22,500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Mobile Equipment | $393,958 | $0 | $312 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $48,198 | $110,212 | $57,500 | $1,200 | $17,400 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $2,300 | $0 | $0 | $9,200 |
M3 Capital: | ||||||||||||||||||
General | $4,397 | $0 | $0 | $4,397 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Primary Crushing | $383 | $0 | $0 | $383 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Secondary & Tertiary Crushing | $40,419 | $0 | $0 | $9,911 | $9,459 | $21,050 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Conveying & Stacking | $70,560 | $0 | $0 | $12,991 | $12,991 | $39,941 | $1,159 | $1,159 | $1,159 | $1,159 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Heap Leach | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Merrill Crowe | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Overhead Power Line | $1,450 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,450 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Reagents | $19,767 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $18,146 | $1,121 | $500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Rail Unloading & Storage | $32,340 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $10,792 | $21,548 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
De-watering | $15,811 | $0 | $3,850 | $376 | $2,385 | $3,791 | $1,197 | $0 | $376 | $0 | $652 | $376 | $0 | $0 | $376 | $0 | $0 | $376 |
Owner's Team | $5,148 | $4,548 | $600 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Other Annual Sustaining | $15,500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 |
Working Capital | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Total Capital Expenditures | $768,369 | $36,999 | $23,687 | $28,558 | $36,582 | $104,976 | $74,676 | $113,609 | $60,985 | $2,859 | $18,552 | $1,331 | $23,000 | $500 | $3,176 | $500 | $500 | $10,076 |
Total Cash Outflows | $11,089,437 | $73,131 | $142,663 | $203,958 | $270,196 | $367,937 | $367,142 | $418,396 | $350,028 | $327,615 | $350,411 | $345,841 | $383,455 | $345,995 | $390,612 | $332,873 | $333,030 | $340,338 |
Net Cash Flow | $5,072,113 | -$8,925 | -$19,639 | $53,542 | $111,197 | -$13,961 | $85,248 | -$12,838 | $71,666 | $347,425 | $170,133 | $240,327 | $224,701 | $124,155 | $293,359 | $157,549 | $53,044 | $65,013 |
Cumulative Net Cash Flow | -$8,925 | -$28,565 | $24,977 | $136,175 | $122,214 | $207,462 | $194,624 | $266,289 | $613,715 | $783,848 | $1,024,175 | $1,248,877 | $1,373,032 | $1,666,390 | $1,823,939 | $1,876,983 | $1,941,996 | |
Mining ($/t mined) | $1.61 | $2.57 | $2.62 | $2.14 | $1.78 | $1.54 | $1.57 | $1.50 | $1.25 | $1.55 | $1.44 | $1.54 | $1.63 | $1.43 | $1.35 | $1.32 | $1.55 | $1.53 |
Heap Leach ($/ore t) | $2.93 | $2.22 | $2.62 | $2.27 | $2.14 | $3.00 | $2.58 | $2.78 | $3.05 | $3.06 | $3.21 | $3.02 | $2.43 | $3.43 | $3.27 | $2.91 | $3.03 | $2.93 |
Crushing Costs ($/crushed ore ton) | $0.50 | $0.83 | $0.89 | $0.63 | $0.53 | $0.53 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 |
Ore Rehandle ($/crushed ore ton) | $0.03 | $0.45 | $0.45 | $0.45 | $0.45 | $0.45 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Process Plant ($/ore t) | $0.49 | $0.70 | $0.70 | $0.42 | $0.56 | $0.47 | $0.43 | $0.38 | $0.46 | $0.51 | $0.55 | $0.58 | $0.54 | $0.47 | $0.62 | $0.43 | $0.41 | $0.42 |
Lab & Met Services ($/ore t) | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.06 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.05 |
G&A ($/ore t) | $0.43 | $1.11 | $0.70 | $0.35 | $0.40 | $0.44 | $0.47 | $0.37 | $0.47 | $0.42 | $0.47 | $0.46 | $0.38 | $0.45 | $0.44 | $0.47 | $0.45 | $0.45 |
Treatment Charges/Transportation ($/ore t) | $0.24 | $0.09 | $0.13 | $0.10 | $0.23 | $0.16 | $0.18 | $0.16 | $0.20 | $0.25 | $0.28 | $0.30 | $0.29 | $0.22 | $0.34 | $0.18 | $0.17 | $0.17 |
Net Proceeds Tax ($/ore t) | $0.17 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.10 | $0.18 | $0.10 | $0.12 | $0.04 | $0.04 | $0.26 | $0.10 | $0.17 | $0.18 | $0.07 | $0.30 | $0.13 | $0.04 | $0.05 |
Total Operating Cost ($/ore t) | $8.52 | $8.05 | $9.47 | $7.53 | $8.46 | $9.17 | $8.12 | $7.45 | $8.00 | $8.54 | $9.15 | $9.36 | $8.40 | $9.11 | $9.17 | $8.69 | $8.90 | $8.77 |
Financial Indicators | ||||||||||||||||||
NPV @ 0% | $5,072,113 | |||||||||||||||||
NPV @ 5% | $2,080,798 | |||||||||||||||||
NPV @ 10% | $1,053,725 | |||||||||||||||||
IRR | 148.6% | |||||||||||||||||
Payback (years) | 2.5 |
|
215 |
Hycroft Sulfide Heap Leach Oxidation | ||||||||||||||||||
2036 | 2037 | 2038 | 2039 | 2040 | 2041 | 2042 | 2043 | 2044 | 2045 | 2046 | 2047 | 2048 | 2049 | 2050 | 2051 | 2052 | 2053 | |
Year 18 | Year 19 | Year 20 | Year 21 | Year 22 | Year 23 | Year 24 | Year 25 | Year 26 | Year 27 | Year 28 | Year 29 | Year 30 | Year 31 | Year 32 | Year 33 | Year 34 | Year 35 | |
Cash Outflows ($000) | ||||||||||||||||||
Operating Cost | ||||||||||||||||||
Mining | $156,567 | $141,667 | $170,598 | $143,752 | $137,971 | $140,478 | $149,336 | $124,923 | $115,528 | $110,798 | $127,733 | $113,820 | $119,909 | $117,008 | $89,621 | $95,290 | $9,837 | $1 |
Heap Leach | $104,975 | $95,608 | $105,175 | $111,422 | $110,400 | $98,685 | $111,328 | $115,955 | $115,074 | $115,721 | $115,807 | $106,446 | $110,692 | $106,812 | $98,988 | $112,315 | $16,898 | $0 |
Crushing Costs | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,992 | $17,345 | $17,183 | $17,183 | $12,716 | $497 | $0 |
Ore Rehandle (Crusher Feed & Crushed Rehandle) | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Merrill Crowe/Refinery | $15,203 | $16,971 | $21,927 | $23,087 | $20,767 | $16,189 | $18,190 | $15,103 | $13,441 | $14,002 | $14,041 | $14,989 | $12,338 | $15,712 | $19,079 | $39,704 | $625 | $0 |
Lab & Met Services | $1,973 | $1,622 | $2,090 | $1,899 | $1,855 | $1,712 | $1,355 | $1,154 | $1,154 | $1,119 | $1,049 | $952 | $1,060 | $916 | $567 | $713 | $0 | $0 |
Ancillaries | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $1,031 | $924 | $129 | $0 |
Site G&A | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $17,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $0 |
Treatment & Refining Charges | $6,109 | $7,499 | $11,394 | $12,301 | $10,483 | $6,883 | $8,456 | $6,031 | $4,725 | $5,166 | $5,196 | $6,032 | $3,944 | $6,705 | $9,879 | $27,120 | $13,390 | $0 |
Transportation | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $187 | $0 |
Warehouse Inventory | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | -$2,246 | $0 |
Crofoot Royalty | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Net Proceeds Tax | $2,257 | $5,485 | $8,556 | $5,468 | $10,706 | $2,583 | $4,658 | $2,937 | $2,352 | $2,477 | $2,379 | $12,324 | $1,944 | $7,167 | $11,679 | $23,168 | $20,139 | $0 |
Income Taxes | $9,005 | $21,887 | $34,138 | $21,815 | $42,717 | $10,305 | $18,586 | $11,718 | $9,385 | $9,884 | $9,492 | $49,174 | $7,755 | $28,597 | $46,601 | $92,439 | $80,353 | $0 |
Total Operating Cost | $332,298 | $326,949 | $390,087 | $355,952 | $371,108 | $313,045 | $348,119 | $314,030 | $297,868 | $295,377 | $311,905 | $339,947 | $293,203 | $311,319 | $304,815 | $409,577 | $144,809 | $1 |
Other Costs | ||||||||||||||||||
Reclamation & Closure Costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $28,801 | $28,801 |
Salvage Value | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Total Other Costs | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $28,801 | $28,801 |
Capital Expenditures | ||||||||||||||||||
Geotechnical/Metallurgical Drilling | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Leach Pad & Pond Construction | $455 | $35,100 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $455 | $35,100 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Mobile Equipment | $25,112 | $28,824 | $57,400 | $22,000 | $5,100 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $9,200 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
M3 Capital: | ||||||||||||||||||
General | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Primary Crushing | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Secondary & Tertiary Crushing | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Conveying & Stacking | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Heap Leach | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Merrill Crowe | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Overhead Power Line | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Reagents | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Rail Unloading & Storage | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
De-watering | $652 | $0 | $376 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $376 | $652 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Owner's Team | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Other Annual Sustaining | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Working Capital | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Total Capital Expenditures | $26,719 | $64,424 | $58,276 | $22,500 | $5,600 | $500 | $500 | $1,331 | $36,252 | $9,700 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $500 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Total Cash Outflows | $359,017 | $391,373 | $448,363 | $378,452 | $376,708 | $313,545 | $348,619 | $315,361 | $334,120 | $305,077 | $312,405 | $340,447 | $293,703 | $311,819 | $304,815 | $409,577 | $173,610 | $28,802 |
Net Cash Flow | $61,245 | $111,818 | $197,044 | $176,932 | $282,771 | $112,180 | $163,973 | $116,355 | $62,011 | $93,231 | $95,021 | $286,714 | $72,987 | $186,196 | $264,691 | $485,797 | $389,952 | -$28,802 |
Cumulative Net Cash Flow | $2,003,241 | $2,115,059 | $2,312,104 | $2,489,035 | $2,771,806 | $2,883,986 | $3,047,959 | $3,164,314 | $3,226,325 | $3,319,556 | $3,414,577 | $3,701,291 | $3,774,278 | $3,960,474 | $4,225,165 | $4,710,963 | $5,100,915 | $5,072,113 |
Mining ($/t mined) | $1.57 | $1.67 | $1.66 | $1.49 | $1.46 | $1.59 | $1.99 | $1.85 | $1.72 | $1.68 | $2.01 | $1.90 | $1.88 | $1.94 | $1.75 | $1.68 | $1.16 | $0.00 |
Heap Leach ($/ore t) | $2.77 | $2.65 | $2.92 | $3.00 | $3.01 | $2.74 | $3.09 | $3.22 | $3.20 | $3.21 | $3.22 | $2.96 | $3.07 | $2.97 | $2.75 | $3.12 | $2.00 | $0.00 |
Crushing Costs ($/crushed ore ton) | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.50 | $0.48 | $0.48 | $0.48 | $0.35 | $1.09 | $0.00 |
Ore Rehandle ($/crushed ore ton) | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Process Plant ($/ore t) | $0.40 | $0.47 | $0.61 | $0.62 | $0.57 | $0.45 | $0.50 | $0.42 | $0.37 | $0.39 | $0.39 | $0.42 | $0.34 | $0.44 | $0.53 | $1.10 | $0.07 | $0.00 |
Lab & Met Services ($/ore t) | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.06 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.05 | $0.04 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.03 | $0.02 | $0.02 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
G&A ($/ore t) | $0.43 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.45 | $0.46 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.28 | $0.28 | $0.14 | $0.30 | $0.00 |
Treatment Charges/Transportation ($/ore t) | $0.17 | $0.21 | $0.32 | $0.34 | $0.29 | $0.20 | $0.24 | $0.17 | $0.14 | $0.15 | $0.15 | $0.17 | $0.11 | $0.19 | $0.28 | $0.76 | $1.61 | $0.00 |
Net Proceeds Tax ($/ore t) | $0.06 | $0.15 | $0.24 | $0.15 | $0.29 | $0.07 | $0.13 | $0.08 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.07 | $0.34 | $0.05 | $0.20 | $0.32 | $0.64 | $2.38 | $0.00 |
Total Operating Cost ($/ore t) | $8.52 | $8.44 | $9.87 | $9.01 | $8.97 | $8.40 | $9.14 | $8.40 | $8.01 | $7.93 | $8.40 | $8.08 | $7.93 | $7.85 | $7.17 | $8.81 | $7.62 | $0.00 |
|
216 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
19.13 | Sensitivities |
Table 19-7: Hycroft Metal Price Sensitivity
1. | Downside Case (Reserve Price) |
2. | Financial Base Case |
3. | Moderate Case |
4. | Upside Case (After Tax IRR does not calculate due to positive cash flow in year one) |
The following table assumes the base case metal prices of gold ($1,300.00/oz) and silver ($17.33/oz).
Table 19-8: Hycroft Mining/Processing/Capital Cost Sensitivity
Cost Sensitivities |
After tax NPV
(0%) |
After tax NPV
(5%) |
After tax NPV (10%) | After tax IRR | |
Area | Scenario | Billions | Billions | Billions | % |
Mining
Cost |
20% Increase | $4.40 | $1.75 | $0.85 | 89% |
10% Increase | $4.74 | $1.91 | $0.95 | 115% | |
10% Decrease | $5.41 | $2.25 | $1.15 | 190% | |
20% Decrease | $5.74 | $2.41 | $1.25 | 242% | |
Processing
Cost |
20% Increase | $4.33 | $1.72 | $0.84 | 82% |
10% Increase | $4.70 | $1.90 | $0.95 | 111% | |
10% Decrease | $5.44 | $2.26 | $1.16 | 201% | |
20% Decrease | $5.80 | $2.43 | $1.26 | 280% | |
Capital
Expenditures |
20% Increase | $4.92 | $1.98 | $0.98 | 96% |
10% Increase | $5.00 | $2.03 | $1.02 | 118% | |
10% Decrease | $5.15 | $2.13 | $1.09 | 200% | |
20% Decrease | $5.23 | $2.18 | $1.13 | 320% |
|
217 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
20 | Adjacent Properties |
There are no properties adjacent to the Hycroft project with recent Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve estimates.
|
218 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
21 | Other Relevant Data and Information |
All data relevant to the feasibility study and associated mineral reserves and mineral resources have been included in the sections of this Technical Report Summary.
|
219 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
22 | Interpretation and Conclusions |
Hycroft has a long history in heap leaching of oxide and transition ores. This history includes a wealth of knowledge on how the ore behaves during heap leaching, including operational data on reagent consumptions and other operating costs. The crushing plant that is already in place requires only minor modifications to deliver crushed ore to the leach pad. The secondary and tertiary crushers have been refurbished by the vendor.
22.1 | Mineral Resources |
The Hycroft resource model was reviewed and recalculated independently by SRK, who also made refinements to the geologic model. The mineral resources stated in this Technical Report are based upon currently available exploration information. This data includes historical information that was collected prior to current standards. However, the uncertainty and risk associated with this historic data has been mitigated through the addition of modern drilling that has been subjected to strict QA/QC protocols that met or exceeded the industry best practices at the time.
22.2 | Mineral Reserves |
The Hycroft deposit supports continued successful exploitation, given the size, grade, metallurgical characteristics, developed infrastructure, and the knowledge and experience of the individuals engaged in the project. The uncertainty and risk associated with the historic exploration data was mitigated where possible, through the following:
• | Monthly reconciliation between the exploration model and actual production to verify the mineral reserve estimates and modeling methodologies; and | |
• | Long-term production (1982-present) records to verify mineral reserve estimates for gold and silver. | |
22.3 | Social Impact, Permits and Utilities |
The contemplated operations would provide additional direct employment for the area and provide a long-term revenue source to the local and state economy.
HMC has all the necessary permits to mine above the water table and process ore by heap leaching. The construction of additional heap leach pad space will be required to accommodate the plans detailed in this report for which multiple federal, state and local permits will need to be obtained. To date, HMC has received support of Pershing and Humboldt counties, neighboring towns including Winnemucca, Gerlach and Lovelock as well as regulatory bodies such as the BLM and EPA among others. The plan of operations was submitted for the supplemental EIS, which includes mining below the water table. Continued support is expected from local parties. HMC sees permitting as low-risk given the past success, support levels, new regulatory timelines imposed on permitting activities and the ability to mitigate delays with supplemental plans.
HMC has received power supply quotes from NV Energy, the only power supplier in Northern Nevada. HMC believes that it will achieve the GS-4 rate, established for large consumers, based on power requirements. The long-term rate used in the feasibility study is $0.056/kWh.
22.4 | Project Financials |
Sensitivity analysis indicates that this is a robust project that can withstand 20% increases in the key cash flow components:
· | If mining operating costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the project would still remain viable by interpolation of the sensitivities shown in Table 19-8. |
|
220 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
· | If processing costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the project would still remain viable by interpolation of the sensitivities shown in Table 19-8. |
· | If capital construction costs were to increase 20% from those currently estimated, the project would still remain viable by interpolation of the sensitivities shown in Table 19-8. |
22.5 | Metallurgical Processing |
The processing of the run-of-mine oxide and transition ores will continue with the new mine plan. Added to this are oxide and transition ores that will be crushed before stacking on the heap leach pad, as dictated by economics. Processing of these ores will implement the historical procedure, applying the same reagent dosage and leach times that were established in the past.
All sulfide ore in the mine plan will be crushed, oxidized and leached. Some transition ores will use the sulfide protocol as dictated by economics.
Tests results show that oxidation of sulfide ores is accelerated in the presence of carbonate, which may be supplied by soda ash or trona. For the ore samples that were tested with the prescribed oxidation procedure, the resulting cyanide leach recovery are expected to average at about 70%, with Central ores showing a maximum gold recovery of 85%. In essence, the oxidation of sulfide and transition ores converts them into oxide ores.
The most important control parameters in the oxidation process are pH and oxygen availability. The oxidation must be conducted in the presence of sufficient soda ash to keep the pH near the buffer region between carbonate and bicarbonate (pH 10.3). At this pH regime, ferrous and ferric carbonate complexes become stable and provides a carbonate complex version of the Fe(II)/Fe(III) couple. During operations, iron ions will already be present in the recycled carbonate solutions which should initiate the reaction sooner than the laboratory tests.
Oxygen is the ultimate oxidizer in the process. The tests results show that natural air pockets need to be formed during stacking of the ore and maintained during the oxidation phase and the leach phase. This is consistent with the procedure to keep the ore just wet enough to promote the reactions that occur in the aqueous phase, while keeping the interstices in the stack open for air to occupy.
Laboratory oxidation tests were performed for 60, 90 and 120 days. These time periods are most probably the right range of oxidation times in actual operations. However, the required times may be shorter if the presence of iron in recycled carbonate solutions is exploited, assuming that permeability of the ore stack is tightly maintained.
|
221 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
23 | Recommendations |
Based on financial and technical measures, exploration success, and positive economic benefits, and project developments to date, it is recommended that HMC move the project into production.
23.1 | Geology, Exploration and Drilling: |
SRK recommends the following:
• | The estimated costs and current metal prices have defined Hycroft’s gold equivalent cutoff grade at low values compared to those typically reported by analytical labs. Future gold and silver assay methods should have method detection limits that are sufficiently low to yield repeatable results, with proportionally low analytical uncertainty, near the cutoff grade. Assay results should be reported with sufficient precision for calculation of valid ratios of cyanide-soluble to total gold, to assign gold recovery material types. Results may be reported in parts per million and converted to ounces per ton, as long as precision is maintained. |
• | There is an opportunity to refine the interpreted East Fault surface with new metallurgical drill hole data and consideration of assay values where geological data are incomplete. This would improve material type designations at depth. |
• | Drill hole density in the known deposit areas is sufficient for estimation of a mineral resource, as classified herein. If additional drilling is done before mining resumes, it should target areas that may be inaccessible during mining. Other targets should include shallow, Inferred material with economic grades in the Resource pit. This could define additional high-recovery material to include in the short-term mining plan. |
|
222 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
24 | References |
Agterberg, F.P., 1974, Geomathematics; Developments in Geomathematics 1, Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 596p.
Albert, T., 2010, MLA Analysis, Kappes, Cassiday & Associates and The Center for Advanced Mineral and Metallurgical Processing, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, Butte, Montana, 14p.
Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Memorandum: September 11, 2007, Hycroft Heap Leach Mine Re-commissioning Study.
AMEC, 2013. Hycroft Mine – Mill-Geotechnical Report (Revision No. 2) dated June 27, 2013 Project No. 74191306L0.
Bailey, E.H, and Phoenix, D.A., 1944, Quicksilver Deposits in Nevada, University of Nevada Bulletin, v.38, no.5.
Bates, W.R., 2000, Hycroft Exploration Update, unpublished Vista Gold report.
Bates, W.R., 2001, A proposed Exploration Program for the Hycroft Mine, unpublished Vista Gold report.
Caldeira, C.L, Ciminelli, V.S.T, Osseo-Asare, K, 2010, “The role of carbonate ions in pyrite oxidation in aqueous systems,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 74, 1777–1789
Call & Nicholas, Inc., 1997, Hycroft Crofoot & Lewis Mine: Brimstone East Wall Stability Study, January 29, 1997.
Call & Nicholas, Inc., 2011, Review of Geotechnical Issues related to the Hycroft Oxide Mine Plan.
Call & Nicholas, Inc., 2012, Review of Geotechnical Issues related to the Hycroft Oxide Mine Plan.
Carter, G.F., 2009, Mineralization and Alteration at the Allied Nevada Gold Corporation’s Hycroft Mine, Humboldt County, Nevada.
Clark. I.C., 1918, Recently Recognized Alunite Deposits at Sulphur, Humboldt County, Nevada, Engineering and Mining Journal, v.106, no.4.
Couch, B.F and Carpenter, J. A., 1943, Nevada’s metal and mineral production (1859-1940 inclusive), Univ. Nevada Bulletin, v.37, no.4 Geology and Mining Services no.38.
Davis, J.C., 1986, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology (2nd ed.); John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 646p.
Descostes, M., Beaucaire, C., Mercier, F., Savoye, S, Sow, J. and Zuddas, P., 2002, “Effect of carbonate ions on pyrite (FeS 2) dissolution,” Bull. Soc. géol. France, t. 173, no. 3, pp. 265-270.
Ebert, S.W., 1996 The anatomy and Origin of the Crofoot/Lewis Mine, a low sulfidation hot spring type gold silver deposit located in northwest Nevada; Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Australia, Nedlands West Australia.
Epiney, 2013. Transfer and Consumption of Oxygen in Gold-Bearing Sulfide Ores: Agnico Eagle Mine Trials; Michel Epiney, Javier O. Jara, Marlene Lanouette, Kevin Morin. Presented at Ralph Lloyd Harris Memorial Symposium, Session IV: Injection Phenomena, October 2013.
ESI, (2017). Guide to Using Groundwater Vistas, version 7, code documentation report. Reinholds, PA: Environmental Simulations, Inc., 2017.
Flint, D.C. 2011, Technical Report – Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, October 5, 2011, 169p.
Flint, D.C., 2012, Technical Report - Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, April 9, 2012.
Friberg, R.S., 1980, Detailed Evaluation Report of the Sulphur gold silver prospect, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada. Unpublished Homestake Mining Company Report, 32p.
|
223 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Fulton and Smith, 1932, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology File Manuscript.
G&T Metallurgical Services, 2011, Metallurgical Testing for the Hycroft Mine, Nevada, USA. 483p.
Golder Associates Inc., 2011; Prefeasibility Design Report, Tailings Management Facility, Hycroft Mine, Nevada; Rev 1, September 2011.
Golder Associates Inc., 2014a; Hycroft Mine - Tailings Management Facility Prefeasibility Design Summary; Letter dated March 31, 2014.
Golder Associates Inc., 2014b; Feasibility Design Report, Tailings Management Facility, Hycroft Mine, Nevada; Draft October 14, 2014.
Golder Associates Inc., 2016, Hycroft Mine Pit Slope Design Review, July 2016.
Harris, D. 2010. Tonnage Factor Nov. 2010. Internal memorandum.
Harris, D. 2012. Hycroft Assays of Exploration Samples. Internal memorandum
Hazen Research, Inc., 2010, Comminution Testing.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2011, POX-CIL Evaluation of Hycroft Flotation Concentrates.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2014, Atmospheric Alkaline Oxidation Pretreatment Pilot Plant of Hycroft Flotation Concentrate, September 17, 2014, 1,251p.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2014, Evaluation of Sulfide Oxidation Processes on Gold Concentrates, April 7, 2014, 225p.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2014, Flotation Pilot Plant of Hycroft Ore Samples, April 18, 2014.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2014, Phase 2 Atmospheric Alkaline Oxidation of Hycroft Flotation Concentrate, September 5, 2014, 389p.
Hazen Research, Inc., 2014, Phase 4 Atmospheric Alkaline Oxidation (AAO) Product Flotation and Sulfide Oxidation with Hydrostatic Pressure, October 17, 2014, 133 pp.
HDR Engineering, Inc., 2013, Hydrogeologic Characterization Report Water Supply Investigation Hycroft Mine, prepared for Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc., July 24, 2013.
HDR Engineering, Inc., 2013, Water Supply Investigation Project Ground Water Modeling Evaluation Report Hycroft Mine, prepared for Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc., May 21, 2013.
Hycroft, 2019a. Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. Document to SRK titled “2018 Sonic Drill Assay Issues.docx”, March 4, 2019, 1 pg.
Hycroft, 2019b. Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. Document to SRK titled “2018 Sonic Drill Data Transfer.docx”, March 4, 2019, 1 pg.
Hycroft, 2019c. Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. Document to SRK titled “2018 Sonic Drill Sample Method.docx”, March 4, 2019, 1 pg.
Hycroft, 2019d. Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. Correspondence via email between Brian White, Chief Geologist, Hycroft Mine, and Brooke Clarkson, SRK, March 2019.
Hycroft Memorandum: August 11, 1994, Final Report on Brimstone Core Column Leaching.
Hycroft Memorandum: August 24, 1994, Results of Barrel Leaching the Residues from Brimstone Core Column Leach Samples.
Hycroft Memorandum: December 22, 1994, Final Report on Brimstone Ore from Bench 4935, Test Pad #4.
Hycroft Memorandum: July 19, 1995, Brimstone Recoveries.
|
224 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
Hycroft Memorandum: July 21, 1994, Brimstone R.O.M. test work conducted on blast round B.C. 002 material.
Hycroft Memorandum: September 20, 1994 Brimstone Test Heap Results
Hydrogeologic, Inc., (2006). MODFLOW-SURFACT Software (version 3.0).
Ibrado, A., et al, 2016. Hycroft Project, Mill Expansion Feasibility Study, Technical Report, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA prepared by M3 Engineering for Hycroft Mining Corporation, October 31, 2016.
Ibrado, A., Kelly, A., Harris, D., Thom, T., Bermudez, B. October 31, 2016. Hycroft Mine Mill Demonstration Plant Initial Report. Prepared for Hycroft Mining Corporation.
Jones, J.C. 1921, Report on the Property of the Silver Camel Mining and Development Company, Sulphur, Nevada. Unpublished Silver Camel Mining and Development Company Report, 6p.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates. 2010. Hycroft Project, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, Bottle Roll Leach Study, 59p.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates. 2010. Hycroft Project, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, Bottle Roll Leach Study, 157p.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates. 2011. Hycroft Project, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, Coarse Cleaner and Locked Cycle Flotation Study Global Composite.
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates. 2011. Hycroft Project, Report of Metallurgical Test Work, Flotation Regrind Bottle Roll Leach Study Brimstone, Central and Vortex Composites.
M3, 2018. PN160092 Civil Specification 5200, Civil Design Criteria.
MacDonald, J. and Dymov, I. et al, 2009, An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold and Silver from Hycroft Project Sulfide Samples, 36p.
MacDonald, J. and Dymov, I. et al, 2010, An Investigation of the Recovery of Gold and Silver from Hycroft Project Sulfide Samples 6p.
McLean, D.A., 1991, Geology of the Crofoot Mine; unpublished Hycroft Resources and Development Inc. Report, 11p.
MLI, 2018. McClelland Laboratories, Inc. General Testwork Pricing Guidelines 2018. Provided to SRK by MLI on March 6, 2019. 2 pg.
MRDI, 2000, Evaluation of Sampling Biases, Resource Model and Reserves, Brimstone Gold Deposit, Nevada, Volume 1-Report, unpublished report for Vista Gold Corp. completed by Mineral Resources Development Inc., May 2000.
MRDI, 2002, Brimstone Restart Report, unpublished report prepared for Vista Gold Corp., completed by Mineral Resources Development Inc., June 2002.
Noble, Alan C., 2005, Brimstone and Boneyard Resource Estimates, prepared for Canyon Resources Corporation.
Prenn, Neil, 2006, Technical Report – Vista Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, 43-101 Technical Report prepared by Mine Development Associates, 142p.
Roth, D., et al., 2014, Hycroft Project, NI 43-101 Technical Report Mill Expansion Feasibility Study, Winnemucca, Nevada, prepared by M3 Engineering.
Schlumberger Water Services, (2011). Visual MODFLOW Premium (version 2011.1).
SGS Canada (Lakefield), 2010, An Investigation into Gold and Silver Recovery form Hycroft Sulfide Ores, October 28, 2010, 8p.
|
225 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
SGS Canada (Vancouver), 2011, An Investigation by High Definition Mineralogy (QEMSCAN) into the Mineralogical Characteristics of Metallurgical Samples, 62p.
SRK Consulting (US), 2011 Initial Feasibility Groundwater Study for Hycroft Mine: Report prepared for Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc., July 2011.
SRK Consulting (US), 2013, Summary of Field Investigations and Conceptual Hydrogeology – Hycroft Mine Expansion Project, Nevada: Report prepared for Allied Nevada Gold Corp., August 2013.
SRK Consulting (US), 2014, Groundwater Flow Modeling for the Hycroft Phase II Expansion Project Hycroft Mine Nevada: Report prepared for Allied Nevada Gold Corp., November 2014.
SRK Consulting (US), 2017, 2017 Update - Final Plan for Permanent Closure for the Crofoot Heap Leach Pad and Process Plant Facilities., November 2017.
SRK Consulting (US), 2019, Update of Mine Water Supply and Dewatering Requirements for the Proposed Expansion of the Hycroft Mine, Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada, dated July 10, 2019, 64p.
SRK Consulting, 2008, Database Verification Procedures, an internal memo to Allied Nevada completed by SRK, May 28, 2008, 4p.
USDA, 2016. Drainage Class Map per USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, dated July 21, 2016.
USDA, 2016a. Unified Soil Classification Surface Map for Humboldt County, Nevada, West Part, dated July 21, 2016.
Vandenburg, W.O., 1938, Reconnaissance of Mining Districts in Humboldt County, Nevada; U.S. Bureau of Mines Circular 6995, 47p.
Vista Gold Corp. and Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Press Release: May 10, 2007, Vista Gold and Allied Nevada Announce Closing of Arrangement.
Wallace, A.B., 1980, Geology of the Sulphur District, Southwestern Humboldt County, Nevada, unpublished report for the Soc. Econ. Geol. Field Trip, 1984.
Ware, G.H., 1989, Surface Mapping, Sampling and Selected Cross Sections, unpublished report for Hycroft Resources & Development.
Wellman, E.C., 2010, Slope Angle Recommendations for the Hycroft Mine, Memorandum to Allied Nevada, March 17, 2010.
Wilden R., 1964, Geology of Mineral Deposits of Humboldt County, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines Bulletin 59, 154p.
Wilson, S. E., 2008, Technical Report - Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA.
Wilson, S. E., 2011, Technical Report - Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Hycroft Mine, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA, March 31, 2011.
|
226 |
Hycroft Project
Technical Report Summary – Heap Leaching Feasibility Study
25 | Reliance on Other Experts |
M3, SRK and HMC have relied upon written reports and statements of other individuals and companies with whom it does business. It is believed that the basic assumptions are factual and accurate, and that the interpretations are reasonable. This data has been relied upon in the feasibility study and there is no reason to believe that any material facts have been withheld or misstated. The Qualified Persons have taken all appropriate steps, in their professional judgment, to ensure that the work, information, or advice from the below noted individuals and companies is sound and the Qualified Persons do not disclaim any responsibility for the Technical Report Summary.
HMC’s technical and financial professionals and consultants provided input for the following sections: mine planning, environmental, metallurgy, geology and financial models. HMC personnel who have been instrumental in preparing this study are as follows:
• | Randy Buffington – President & Chief Executive Officer | |
• | Stephen Jones – Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer | |
• | Tracey Thom – Vice President, Environmental and Corporate Affairs | |
• | Nigel Bain – Vice President, Operations | |
• | Jeff Stieber – Vice President, Treasurer | |
• | Tom Rice – Engineering Consultant | |
• | Michael Kubel – Mining Engineer, Hycroft Mine | |
• | Bill Dafoe – Process Manager, Hycroft Mine |
Each of these individuals visits the Hycroft mine on a regular basis as part of the normal course of business. Other experts that have been relied upon and the information they have provided, with respect to the Hycroft operation and expansion, include:
· | ALS Minerals conducts assays of exploration drilling and sampling material for gold, silver and other elements. The data from this work is used to determine the resource for the property. ALS Minerals also conducts secondary QA/QC checks of results from other labs. |
· | Call & Nicholas, Inc. assessed geomechanical properties, completed geomechanical analyses, and determined ultimate pit slope angles. |
· | Golder Associates assessed geomechanical properties, completed geomechanical analyses, reviewed and made recommendations on ultimate pit slope angles. |
· | HDR completed engineering for production water wells and groundwater pumping systems. |
· | McClelland Laboratories performed column leach tests on Hycroft heap leach grade materials as well as assay analysis on column and test pad materials during testing. |
· | Newfields completed the preliminary design, engineering and capital cost estimate for the Hycroft Leach Pad expansion. |
|
227 |
Exhibit 99.9
February 14, 2020
CONSENT OF DUFF & PHELPS, LLC
We hereby consent to the inclusion of our opinion letter, dated January 13, 2020, to the Board of Directors of Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation (“MUDS”) as Annex M to the joint proxy statement/prospectus, which forms a part of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of MUDS (the “Registration Statement”), related to the proposed transaction (as defined in the Registration Statement), and references to our firm and our opinion, including the quotation or summarization of such opinion, in such joint proxy statement/prospectus. The foregoing consent applies only to the Registration Statement being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today and not to any amendments or supplements to the Registration Statement, and our opinion is not to be filed with, included in or referred to in whole or in part in any other registration statement (including any amendments to the above-mentioned Registration Statement), proxy statement or any other document, except in accordance with our prior written consent.
By giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, nor do we thereby admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Registration Statement within the meaning of the term “expert” as used in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated thereunder.
/s/ Duff & Phelps, LLC
Duff & Phelps, LLC
Duff & Phelps, LLC
Floor 31 New York, NY 10055 |
T +1 212 871 2000 | www.duffandphelps.com |