march presentation web
TRANSCRIPT
March 2012
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT
Forward Looking InformationThis Presentation contains ‘‘forward-looking information’’ within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation and the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking information may include, but is not limited to, information with respect to the anticipated production and developments in our operations in future periods, our planned exploration and development activities, the adequacy of our financial resources, the estimation of mineral resources, realization of mineral resource estimates, costs and timing of development of the projects we currently intend to acquire (the “Projects”), costs and timing of future exploration, results of future exploration and drilling, timing and receipt of approvals, consents and permits under applicable legislation, our executive compensation approach and practice, the composition of our board of directors and committees, and adequacy of financial resources. Wherever possible, words such as ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘expects’’ or ‘‘does not expect’’, ‘‘budget’’, ‘‘scheduled’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘forecasts’’, ‘‘anticipate’’ or ‘‘does not anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘intend’’ and similar expressions or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, have been used to identify forward-looking information. Statements concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to constitute forward-looking information to the extent that they involve estimates of the mineralization that will be encountered if the property is developed. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as ‘‘expects’’, ‘‘anticipates’’, ‘‘plans’’, ‘‘projects’’, ‘‘estimates’’, ‘‘assumes’’, ‘‘intends’’, ‘‘strategy’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘potential’’ or variations thereof, or stating that certain actions, events or results ‘‘may’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘would’’, ‘‘might’’ or ‘‘will’’ be taken, occur or be achieved, or the negative of any of these terms and similar expressions) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is subject to a variety of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking information. Many of these risks are listed and described in our final short-form prospectus dated April 4, 2011 (the “Prospectus”), which is available for review on SEDAR at www.sedar.com under our profile. Although we have attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such information. Forward-looking information involves statements about the future and is inherently uncertain, and our actual achievements or other future events or conditions may differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking information due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors, including, without limitation, those referred to in the Prospectus under the heading ‘‘Risk Factors’’. Our forward-looking information is based on the beliefs, expectations and opinions of management on the date the statements are made, and we do not assume any obligation to update forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by applicable law. For the reasons set forth above, prospective investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.National Instrument 43-101Technical and scientific information contained herein relating to the Projects is derived from National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) compliant technical reports (“Reports”) “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Snowfield Property” and “Technical Report and Updated Resource Estimate on the Brucejack Property” dated February 18, 2011; ‘‘Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Snowfield Brucejack Project’’ dated October 28, 2010 ; “Technical Report and Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project” dated June 3, 2011; and “Technical Report and Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project” dated February 20, 2012. We have filed the Reports under our profile at www.sedar.com. Technical and scientific information not contained within the Reports for the Projects have been prepared under the supervision of Mr. Kenneth C. McNaughton, an independent “qualified person” under NI 43-101.This presentation uses the terms “measured resources”, “indicated resources” (together “M&I”) and “inferred resources”. Although these terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations (under NI 43-101), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. There is no guarantee that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.In addition, “inferred resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre feasibility studies, or economic studies, except for a Preliminary Assessment as defined under NI43 101. Investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. CurrencyUnless otherwise indicated, all dollar values herein are in Canadian $.
2
3
Advanced-exploration gold company in Canada, in an area of permitted gold mining
Significant high-grade gold resource at Brucejack: 5 million ounces Measured & Indicated (9.3 Mt @ 16.62 g/t gold )3 million ounces Inferred (4.0 Mt @ 25.67 g/t gold) Opportunity for near-term production Advancing as a stand-alone underground project
Bulk-tonnage gold ounces at Brucejack (13 million oz M&I) offer scale-up opportunity
Snowfield bulk-tonnage gold opportunity
Why ?
BRUCEJACK AND SNOWFIELD PROJECTS
4
BRUCEJACK PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2009 2010 2011
Gol
d re
sour
ces (
mil)
Met
ers
Brucejack Gold Resources Growth
M&I Au Inf Au Meters drilled
1960-1980
1980-1985
1986-1989
1990
1993
1999-2000
2009-2010
2011
2012
Exploration
West Zone discovery
and definition
5.3 km underground
development of West Zone
West Zone Feasibility Study
completed
Mine Development Certificate issued
Acquisition by Silver Standard Resources Inc.
Exploration resumes. Discovery of Valley of the
Kings Zone. Acquisition by Pretivm
(December 2010)
• PEA on Brucejack high-grade (June)
• 72,144-meter drill program (May-Oct)
• Resource update (November)
• Updated PEA on Brucejack high-grade (Q1)
• Feasibility Study (Q4)
BRUCEJACK PLAN VIEW
6
CAMP
PROPOSED DECLINE
HISTORIC UNDERGROUND WORKINGS
BRUCEJACK EXPLORATION DRILLING
7
>0.3 g/t gold
500mExisting 5km underground workings
1980-1994 – Newhawk908 DDH/120,000m
2009-2010 – Silver Standard110 DDH/50,946m
2011 – Pretivm176 DDH/72,144m
West Zone
Valley of the Kings Zone
North – South
Valley of the Kings Zone
Valley of the Kings Zone
Historic Au resource:421,000 oz M&I82,700 oz Inferred
2010 Au resource:8.2M oz M&I12.6M oz Inferred
2011 Au resource:12.9M oz M&I18.2M oz Inferred
500m
2009 Au resource:4.0M oz M&I4.9M oz Inferred
VISIBLE GOLD
8
SU-195 (2011)SU-115 (2011)
SU-84 (2010) SU-29 (2009)
SU-260 (2011)
Brucejack Top 20 High-grade Gold Hits
HoleInterval(meters)
Depth (meters)
Gold (g/t)Gold
(oz/ton)
SU-115 0.6 60.6 18,755 547.0SU-260 0.5 68.4 17,750 517.7SU-12 1.5 273.0 16,948 494.3SU-230 1.0 305.7 7,420 216.4SU-150 0.5 76.4 6,670 194.5SU-40 1.64 648.0 5,850 170.6SU-195 0.5 349.4 5,740 167.4SU-84 0.44 198.0 5,480 159.8SU-29 0.5 560.0 5,344 155.9SU-115 0.51 76.1 4,209 122.8SU-132 0.5 57.68 4,060 118.4SU-249 0.5 115.6 3,880 113.2SU-239 1.0 310.0 3,460 100.9SU-176 0.5 335.8 2,810 81.9SU-54 1.59 53.6 2,490 72.6SU-106 0.69 240.4 1,710 49.9SU-150 0.5 59.0 1,640 47.8SU-136 0.84 228.0 1,550 45.2SU-226 0.52 335.0 1,465 42.7SU-150 1.03 234.0 1,280 37.3SU-157 0.54 350.0 1,200 35.0SU-190 1.98 520.68 1,094 31.9SU-135 0.5 75.0 1,070 31.2SU-193 1.5 93.5 1,040 30.3SU-53 1.5 21.5 1,025 29.9SU-115 1.28 61.2 1,005 29.3
BRUCEJACK RESOURCE – HIGH-GRADE
9
Brucejack Project 5.0 g/t Grade & Tonnage Estimate – November 2011(1)(2)
(Based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver(g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 2.4 7.93 236.1 0.60 18.0Indicated 6.9 19.99 60.9 4.46 13.6M+I 9.3 16.92 105.6 5.06 31.6Inferred 4.0 25.67 20.6 3.33 2.7
97 drill holes /42,000 m for 5.0 g/t resource
32 samples grading over 1,000 g/t Au
157 samples grading 100 g/t to 999.99 g/t Au
529 samples grading 20 g/t to 99.99 g/t Au
(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)(2) 5.0 g/t cutoff within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv /tonne optimized pit shell
Brucejack Project Underground Sensitivity – November 2011(1)(3)
(Based on a cut-off of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver(g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 2.4 7.29 241.2 0.57 18.9Indicated 6.1 24.13 53.3 4.76 10.5M+I 8.6 19.35 106.7 5.33 29.4Inferred 4.0 25.73 22.0 3.29 2.8
(3) The Underground Sensitivity is a sensitivity study of the Brucejack underground potential and is not meant to supercede or replace the results of the bulk-tonnage mineral resource estimate. Sensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell.
Grade Intervals (g/t Au) % of total2009-2010
(1,122 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 94.25.0 to 19.99 3.7
+20 2.12011
(6,252 samples) 0.5 to 4.99 95.15.0 to 19.99 2.9
+20 1.9
Valley of the Kings Intersection Statistics
Brucejack Summary Assay Statistics
Log-Probability Graph of Au Composite Data
VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
10
11
VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
TSX, NYSE:PVG
12
VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
TSX, NYSE:PVG
13
VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
Will be revised
VALLEY OF THE KINGS ZONE
14TSX, NYSE:PVGOpen
Open
RED LAKE COMPARISON
15
WEST ZONE
16
Based on 1980’s/1990’s drilling
Open
WEST ZONE
17TSX, NYSE:PVG
HIGH-GRADE RESOURCE AREAS
18
West ZoneValley of the Kings Zone
5x5x5 blocks (>5.0 g/t AuEq) within low-grade halo. Zones are 450 meters apart.
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver(g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 2.4 7.29 241.2 0.57 18.9Indicated 1.5 7.04 149.4 0.34 7.1M+I 3.9 7.7 206.5 0.91 26.0Inferred 0.2 7.0 94.79 0.05 0.71
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver(g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 0 0 0 0 0Indicated 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37M+I 4.6 29.72 22.6 4.4 3.37Inferred 3.7 26.89 17.5 3.23 2.11
West Zone Underground Sensitivity (1)Valley of the Kings Zone Underground Sensitivity (1)
(1) The Underground Sensitivity is a sensitivity study of the Brucejack underground potential and is not meant to supercede or replace the results of the bulk-tonnage mineral resource estimate. Sensitivity results are not reported within a constraining Whittle pit shell.
Historic underground
workings (5.3km)
Proposed exploration decline
BRUCEJACK ENGINEERING STUDIES
February 2012 Updated PEA(1,2,3) based on 5.0 g/t cut-off gold resource of 5.33 million ounces M&I (8.6Mt @ 19.35 g/t gold) and 3.29 million ounces Inferred (4.0Mt @ 25.73 g/t gold):
– Base Case pre-tax NPV (5% discount) of US$2.262 billion– Average annual production years 1-12 of 325,000 ounces of gold– Total of 6.9 million ounces of gold over the 24-year mine life– Internal rate of return of 29.8%– Capex of US$436.3 million– Mining costs of C$103.60/t milled – Total operating costs of C$170.90/t milled– Gold recovery of 95.7% (gravity and flotation)
Feasibility study anticipated Q4
19
(1) Source: Technical Report and Updated Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Brucejack Project, effective date February 20, 2012(2) Base Case metals prices of US$1,100/oz gold and US$21/oz silver, exchange rate of US$0.93:C$1.00(3) Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty the PEA will be realized.
Advancing near-term production
BRUCEJACK HIGH-GRADE COMPARISON
20
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Mea
sure
d &
Indi
cate
d +
Infe
rred
Gol
d G
rade
(g/t)
Measured & Indicated + Inferred Gold Resources (mm oz)
Brucejack (2011)
Kensington
Red Lake
Eleonore
QuimsacochaEl Penon
Casa Berardi
Jerritt Canyon
Kirkland Lake
Brucejack (2010)
Cerro Negro
Brucejack gold resources based on a cut-off grade of 5.0 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne within the 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne optimized pit shell.Source: Intierra Ltd.
VALUE CREATION: CASE STUDY
At Feasibility-stage with exploration potential
Gold resources at time of acquisition, December 2010:– Indicated Resources of 2.54 million ounces (13.8 million tonnes at 5.71 g/t)
• Includes Probable Reserves of 2.07 million ounces at 9.03 g/t Au– Inferred Resources 0.52 million ounces (5.02 million tonnes at 3.24 g/t)
Gold reserves and resources at March 31, 2011 (post acquisition by Goldcorp)– Probable Reserves of 4.26 million ounces (13 million tonnes at 10.19 g/t)– Indicated Resources of 0.38 million ounces (4.67 million tonnes at 2.50 g/t)– Inferred Resources of 0.72 million ounces (4.51 million tonnes at 4.98 g/t)
21
Andean Resources acquired for $3.6 billion by Goldcorp in Q4 2010 for Cerro Negro Project
BRUCEJACK RESOURCE - GLOBAL
22
Gold/silver vein systems within lower grade envelopes
Mineralization remains open
(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions are: Au US$1,200/oz. (71%); Ag US$22/oz. (70%)
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver( g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 12.2 2.50 81.6 0.99 32.1Indicated 293.0 1.26 10.5 11.91 99.3M+I 305.3 1.31 13.4 12.89 131.5Inferred 813.7 0.70 7.7 18.20 201.2
Category Tonnes(millions)
Gold(g/t)
Silver(g/t)
ContainedGold
(million oz)Silver
(million oz)Measured 9.3 3.08 102.2 0.92 30.6Indicated 64.8 3.62 23.7 7.53 49.4M+I 74.1 3.55 33.6 8.46 80.0Inferred 78.5 2.68 16.3 6.76 41.2
Brucejack Project Bulk-Tonnage Mineral Resource Estimate –November 2011 (1)
(Based on a cut-off grade of 0.30 grams of gold-equivalent/tonne)
Brucejack Project 1.25 Grade & Tonnage Estimate –November 2011 (1),(2)
(2)@ 1.25 g/t cut-off within the 0.30 grams of au-equiv/tonne optimized pit shell.
SNOWFIELD PROJECT
23
Snowfield Open Pit(September 2010 PA)
Mitchell Zone(SEA)
Sulphurets Zone(SEA)
Iron Cap Zone(SEA)
Grade Contained MetalTonnes Au Ag Cu Mo Re Au Ag Cu
(mt) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (mm oz)
(mm oz) (bil lbs)
Measured 189.8 0.82 1.69 0.09% 97.4 0.57 4.98 10.3 0.38Indicated 1,180.3 0.55 1.73 0.10% 83.6 0.50 20.93 65.4 2.60Measured & Indicated 1,370.1 0.59 1.72 0.10% 85.5 0.51 25.92 75.8 2.98
Inferred 833.2 0.34 1.90 0.06% 69.5 0.43 9.03 50.9 1.10
Snowfield Mineral Resource Summary – Feb. 2011(1,2)
(1) Metal price and recoveries assumptions: Au US$1,025/oz (71%); Ag US$16.60/oz (70%); Cu US$3.0/lb (70%); Mo US$19.00/lb (60%); Re US$145.00/oz. (60%)(2) Mineral resource estimate at 0.30g/t AuEq cut-off.
Inferred ResourcesMeasured + Indicated Resources
4015 4 9
66
49
38 26
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pebble KSM Donlin Gold Snowfield
Gol
d R
esou
rces
(mm
oz.
)
Large –Scale North American Gold Projects
(PVG)(NG/ABX)
(SEA)
(NDM)
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & SUSTAINABILITY
24
Pretivm’s Social Responsibility Policy reflects our commitment to establishing positive, trusting relationships with First Nations, local communities and other key stakeholders
We are working to ensure that communication with local communities is open and continuous, and that the benefits of our exploration success can extend to them
We will collaborate with community leaders to explore training and employment opportunities
Pretivm’s management team has been cooperatively engaging with local community leaders in the Stewart, BC region for over 10 years
We have begun the consultation process with community leaders concerning the Brucejack high-grade opportunity
PVG SHARE PERFORMANCE
25
Share Return from January 1, 2011 – March 7, 2012 (%)
Pretivm
Pretivm S&P/TSX Global Mining Index XAU Index
SHAREHOLDING & ANALYST COVERAGE
26
Institutions, 50%
Retail, 23%
Management, 5%
Silver Standard,
22%
Capital Structure(1,2)
Public Float 69.2Silver Standard Shares 18.9 Total Issued & Outstanding Shares 88.1 Incentive Options 6.9Total Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding 95.0
Working Capital (at Dec. 30, 2011) C$18.7 millionFlow-through gross proceeds (at Feb 17, 2012) (4) C$23.1 million
Top Shareholders(1,3) (shares in millions)
Silver Standard Resources 18.913Royce & Associates 6.547Carmignac Gestion 4.555 Fidelity 3.614Robert Quartermain 2.876 Norges Bank Investment 2.409 Passport Capital 2.140
Analyst CoverageCIBC Brian QuastCitibank Alex HackingCormark Securities Richard GrayDahlman Rose Adam GrafGMP Securities Craig WestSalman Partners Ash GuglaniUBS Dan RollinsVery Independent Research John Tumazos
(1)Assumes the exercise of 5,750,000 share purchase warrants each exercisable to purchase one share of Pretivm owned by Silver Standard at $12.50 until April 7, 2012.(2)As of February 17, 2012; ownership calculated on an undiluted basis.(3)As of March 8. Source: IPREO, SEDI(4)See news release dated February 17, 2012
(shares in millions)
MANAGEMENT & BOARD
27
Robert Quartermain, B.Sc., M.Sc., P.Geo, D.Sc. President & Chief Executive Officer, Director
Peter de Visser, CAChief Financial Officer
Joseph Ovsenek, B.A. Sc., P.Eng., LLBVice President & Chief Development Officer, Director
Ken McNaughton, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.Vice President & Chief Exploration Officer
Ken Konkin, P.Geo.Project Manager
Ian I Chang, M.A. Sc., P.Eng.Vice President, Project Development
(1)All senior management and directors are shareholders of Pretivm
(L to R): John Smith, CEO, Silver Standard; Tom Yip, CFO, International Tower Hill Mines; Robert Quartermain; Ross Mitchell, former CFO, Silver Standard; Joseph Ovsenek; Noel Dunn, Managing Director, Liberty Metals & Mining
CONTACTPhone: 604-558-1784Fax: 604-558-4784Toll-free: [email protected]
HEAD OFFICEPretium Resources Inc.570 Granville St.Suite 1600Vancouver, BCCanada V6C 3P1
COMMON SHARESTSX/NYSE:PVGIssued: 88.1 millionFully diluted: 95.0 million52-week hi/low: $18.15/$7.89Market capitalization (at March 8, 2012):$1.55 billion