This is an automatically generated transcript. Denver Gold Group cannot accept responsibility for mistakes, errors, omissions, or any action taken in reliance thereon. Use of this transcript is governed by Denver Gold Group’s Terms of Use.

Thank you all for spending a few minutes of your time to get an update on the Pebble mining story and the Pebble project and how we're helping to secure America's Green Future. Here is a forward looking statement which I encourage you to review when you have time. So we're gonna be talking today about the risk return potential of this asset. We're going to talk about copper as a metal briefly. The fact you're here, I think means that you understand how important copper is, but I will talk about it. Talk about copper supply. I'm going to talk about pebble, how it's a world-class resource. And I'm going to talk about the path forward and the path forward involves litigation. But that's important because in the US to get larger projects permitted, apparently you need to go through litigation. So it's not unexpected. And we have a lot of our peers going through a similar litigation format and we have a path forward, which is quite exciting and I want to tell you about it. So we'll focus on that today just to begin, talk about supply and demand for a minute here of copper. The dark blue line shows the global economic growth which has been the demand for copper is growing at 2.5% on average over the last 40 years. If you look at the economy growing, the expectation is long term 2% per year. Mankind has been very good at finding new ways to use energy and very bad at finding new ways to create energy. So as the economy grows, it needs more energy. You need copper to produce the electricity and you need copper to move the electricity and you need copper to use it in your end use application. So as the economy grows, the demand for copper grows, that's the solid blue line. You see the red line, that's your copper supply and you show how it's expected to peak and then sort of tail off in the coming years and I'll talk a little bit about why that's expected by some people to be the case. And then if you look at the layers above the the regular economic demand, you've got ev demand on top of the existing economy growth, you've got renewable energy demand, you've got an additional electrical grid demand. And I would argue there's the data center demand, there's frankly the war in Ukraine demand. A lot of these new demands for copper are coming. We're very, very good at using copper. The world needs a greater supply. So what's happening with the supply of copper. A couple of things are happening globally. On the top left, you see a chart showing that head grades decline over time. This is a phenomenon with most metals and it's a factor of mining where when you open a mine, you try to mine the highest grade material first because it's the most economic and in time, the grade of the mine will tend to decline and that's happening globally. So globally, we need to find more mines. You've also got political instability. Look at the countries on the top right, Panama with co of Panama, everybody knows that story. Argentina Chile, Ecuador, Peru. These are important copper producing nations that are suffering this instability. And I'll point to Chile just as an example, the problem they're having in Chile, one of the problems is lack of water. So they're they are looking at new projects where you have to actually desalinate ocean water, you have to pump it up, you know, 10,000 ft into the Andes for your project. The cost of doing that is extraordinarily high, takes an enormous amount of energy to do. It's very, very challenging. So it's difficult for countries like Chile to grow their copper production. And I'd heard that Codelco, the big copper producer, its lowest copper production in years was in 2023 despite efforts to increase production. So countries are having trouble producing more. There's a lack of large new projects coming. I remember a story about a year or so ago and, and in it, they, they said that the, the industry needs to find a new Escondida every year for the next eight years and we're not finding any Escondidas. So none have started. None are planned. In fact, if you look at the bottom, right, remember when I said the path forward to getting permitting in the US tends to be using the court system. You see the large six large US copper projects all stalled in federal permitting will require some sort of court action. You got Pebble resolution, Twin Metals, Ambler, Polymet Rosemont. These are big companies behind these projects. These are good solid projects. These projects would be very beneficial for the country, very beneficial for the regions that are operating. All of them are having challenges, getting their permits, not unlike Pebble. So let's talk about Pebble a little bit. Let's talk about a world class resource. This is the largest undeveloped copper project in the world. It's also the most valuable mineral deposit in the world of any type. You can see the measured and indicated resource. The copper is 53 billion pounds. Gold is 54 million ounces. So it's copper, gold, molybdenum, silver and rhenium. And if you haven't heard of rhenium, rhenium is an important metal for militaries. It's used to harden the turbine blades in fighter jet engines. It's used for the exhaust nozzles on rockets. It's a very high melting point and we have the largest undeveloped deposit of it in the world. So you can see our measure and indicated CRN referred, we got over 10 billion tons if you were to add them together of resources, but more important on this slide. So I've told you it's the largest project undeveloped in the world. But look at the mining ground, look at the ground we're in, there are no trees, there are no animals you can see there, no villages, you can't see any rivers. It is dry, it is rocky ground. It is not sought after by wild animals because there's not a lot of vegetation, nowhere to hide. Most of the creeks dry up because the spring runoff ends. So from a continuously flowing water perspective, this is a very dry site. We do get about a meter of precipitation a year, some of it snow, some of it rain. But this picture you see here by the river, by the creeks is about 200 miles to the ocean. So I keep getting asking asked by people, what could be the potential value, what could be the potential value and it's really hard to say. But this is an example of how a value can transition as a company moves from being an exploration company to a developer to a producer, but multiplied by the size of just our m and I worse now. Keep in mind that when you look at our resource, 40% of it is inferred. So that's moved to the side. Just M and I currently approximately the stock trades around 32 US cents a share. The copper is valued the copper from our M and I is valued at 0.19 cents per pound. If we move into the developer status and you just look at the median for developers. If they had to resource our size, we would be 3.59 cents per pound or roughly $6 us per share. And if we were to become a producer one day, that could be $34 per share, 107 times higher, just again, looking at the M and, and remember this deposit, now we've drilled a million feet of drilling. We've spent a billion dollars advancing this project over over 20 years, the project still remains open in a lot of directions. We've simply stopped drilling because we don't need to drill anymore. It's a very large project which has good potential to expand further if we chose to. So we're working our way through the permitting process. I'll just give you a little background from 2020 just to bring you all up to speed. We had one of the most positive environmental impact statements I've read in a long time. It talks about having the benefits for the local communities. From an economic point of view, the benefits to the state of Alaska. How far we are from the ocean? How small the footprint actually is and how we will not impact the commercial fishery, the value of the fishery vessels, the overall fishery does not notice an impact from the mine. The, the subsistence fishermen and hunters are, are, are not impacted. And in the environmental impact statement, it makes the, it makes the, this was done by a third party, was signed off by the Army Corps signed off by the EPA and that the EPA said they did not choose to take objection to it at the time. And a very positive EIS as I say, and in the EIS it talks about how the way the Tailings Pond is designed, it does not retain water so it can't, it can't conceive of how it could have an accident because you can't fill it up with water. It doesn't overwhelm the wall, the water gets drained out continuously. It gets treated by $500 million with the water treatment plants and released into the environment continuously. So no accumulation of water. It's a very, very well designed, very, very good system. So fast forward a couple of months, the Army Corps of Engineers who's responsible for permitting a wetlands in the United States, Alaska's 55% wetlands is, is in charge of doing the permitting. They decide to deny the Rod negative rod decision that the reasons they give are not substantiated in our opinion, are not substantiated by the environmental impact statement. So we appealed the decision and we said back to the army, we said we don't agree with your decision. They have a system in place. They appoint a review officer who reviews the statement, reviews the administrative record. This administrative record is thousands of pages long. It is full of information, but the big document is the environmental impact statement and agencies are supposed to use this document when they make their decisions, these decisions, a lot of them, these statements are 108 degree is the opposite of what's shown in the EIS and we raised exception to that. And interestingly, the review officer did as well. And in the review, the re review officer said, and this is public, she said that there's a lot of statements there, there's statements made by the army that are not substantiated by the environmental impact statement that appear to be at odds with it are not defend. They don't have any, any rationale for these, for these statements and that if they don't have rationale, the statement should be removed, they should be changed, they should be edited and then it may change their overall direction on the project. Now, in the meantime, the EPA came out and the EPA relied on some of these statements and decided that they would put in a veto a veto over the most valuable mineral deposit in the world that they would sterilize 300 square miles of land., that there would never be any mining ever over the most valuable mineral deposit in the world based on some of the expressions made by the army. So then we asked the army to the army has been told by the review officer, you need to change your statements. And they have now said, well, they can't change their statements, they can't do work because the EPA is put in a veto. And this is a circular argument and we are now in the process of exposing that in court. So we are taking the EPA to Federal Federal District Court in Alaska. And let's actually, it's on the next slide. I'll just let me just advance this. We launched two legal actions. First thing we did was launch a takings case and a takings case is actually our last resort. And the takings case is where when the government illegally blocks you from getting benefit that you should receive that you ask them for compensation. So we've taken, we took out a takings case. It has now been stayed. It is now in the background, it can be pulled forward when we choose. It's an enormous potential environment or an enormous potential financial liability for the government that's in the background while we focus on getting the veto removed. So the case against the veto is in federal district court, a judge has been appointed and the State of Alaska is furious about this decision by the EPA, the decision by the Army, how it goes against decades of their interactions and their relationship, how it doesn't seem to follow the law. So they are also suing the, the agencies in court, suing the EPA. We've now asked the judge to add the Army Corps to the lawsuit against the EPA so that we can get them both in there. Both as defendants, potentially discover do discovery of people who knew what when, how did these decisions happen? That were so contrary to the EIS, it'll be very interesting to find out. And now they're all, they're all in the case. The judge agreed the case appears to be connected and has agreed that they should be heard together and subsequent as well. We've got Native Village Corps are now suing as well. They're suing the EPA because they had expected economic benefits. They've been told they'll receive jobs, there'll be money, they'll actually be able to save their villages. Their Children won't have to go to schools and other villages, their villages will stop collapsing. They had all these opportunities that they were told would come and are now being blocked by actions by these agencies with what appears to not be legitimate reasons why. So we've got our lawsuit against the EPA and the Army Corps, the State of Alaska is suing the Native Village Corps are suing. And this is an excellent opportunity to find out what really happened. And for,, for the judge to, to consider the actions, to consider the rationale, to look at the facts, I think they lean our way. We understand from our legal team that it's a strong case, but I'm not a lawyer, but that's what we hear. And I'm looking forward to our day in court and that will come, it, it'll come. The court system is not fast but it is what it is. And we believe that the justice will review the facts and we make decisions accordingly which we're looking forward to having happen. Ok? And as I've said, there's a circularity between what the army has done and the EPA has done and how they've relied on each other, how they're leaning on each other, how they're making decisions at the same time, both with the same direction from a federal administration who's come out and said they really don't want any big mines, but they don't really have a plan on where they're going to get the copper. They need to electrify their economy one day. I believe that that situation will change and I believe it will take possibly a higher copper price, possibly, perhaps a belligerent China no longer exporting copper, whatever that situation is, maybe just a general realization that we will not meet our environmental green energy targets. If we don't have a bigger copper supply in the world. And here we have the largest deposit in the world which could be developed safely, which can be an enormous economic benefit and is being it's being stopped from, from being developed. Now, the question people ask is, how are we going to pay for this? How will we survive while we fight the agencies in court? And part of the solution is this royalty agreement that we have. I I call it innovative because it's one of the best financing arrangements I've seen in the mining industry. Basically, we have a royalty investor who's investing up to 60 million US dollars in five tranches of $12 million for the right to buy each tranche of $12 million. Us, they get the right to buy 2% of the gold production and 6% of the silver production for the life of the mine at a set price. So we get what you would consider high risk capital. Today, I don't have to issue shares to get it. I don't have to dilute I get cash today which we need for this fight. And one day when this becomes a mine, if and when the investor will get a stream of metal for the time that the mine operates. Now, it's a 20 year permit that we applied for. Initially, the resource is considerably larger than that. And I would expect us to apply to have permits renewed, which is the typical practice in mining. So where we sit today is that they have funded $24 million.02 tranches of 12 million already. They have till the end of July 26th of 2025 to fund the remaining three tranches of 12 million or $36 million whether they choose to fully fund or not, whether they choose to fund part, whether they asked for it to be extended, all of that is uncertain. They have until July to decide we have a insufficient cash position to take us through that time. So we're, we're well funded at this point. I believe at the end of the second quarter from memory, I think we had 8 million Canadian dollars in the bank. We then raised $10 million US from the remaining part of the second tranche. So we have a good cash position in which to continue this fight against the agencies. In my opinion, the permitting system in the US is one of the most stringent in the world. It is designed to be designed to revolve around facts, to be based on scientific calculations, engineering understanding, to not be emotional, to not be based on suppositions and guesses. And I look forward to the US getting back on track with its permitting so that we can get some of these projects going, get the economic benefits in Alaska, get the jobs, get the people working, get the economic benefits of the metal, all of that we need in North America. And Pebble is just one of the examples of projects that really, really need to be approved. Thank you very much for your time, Mike. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm going to kick off the, the Q and A. If any of you have a question, please raise your, raise your hand and we'll get to you. But could you give us a sense of how the US election might impact the outcome in your case? And, and this project going forward, we get that question a lot and people talk about in the past how our stock has moved or not moved, depending on which political party is ahead or behind in the polls. And we are at this stage, we are very happy that we are not looking for a decision from agencies in the United States during the election cycle. Our experience in 2020 is that we have a very good project. We have a very good EIS and somehow the decision was made that this is not the direction they're going to go in and, and whether what happened politically, we don't know, we don't know how that happened, how that transpired, but it was during the election process and we felt like we were becoming a bit of a political football. It's, it's nice that this time around we're not in the news. We don't have, we don't have any of the candidates talking about the project, looking for action on the project. We are in court. We're marching down the path of having the judge hear the case. A very strong case. We're comfortable with our position where it is happy to be lower profile while we do that and not be part of the political actions. And as, as the new president comes in, there will be a new administration. We don't know who the president's gonna be. We don't know who's going to be in their administration. Maybe they'll have a new approach to mining. That would be a refreshing change. The doe says copper is a critical metal. Maybe the other groups will start calling it critical as well. Maybe you'll have the government start thinking that way. Maybe not and maybe not tomorrow. But we're, we've been working at this for over 20 years. We spent a billion dollars. We're not going away. This is a very, very important project. We're going to keep pushing until we get this thing built, regardless of whoever's in power. OK. Thank you very much for that, Mike. That was a wonderful presentation.