Annual Information Form for the Year Ended December 31, 2019 Dated As of March 25, 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Economics of Mining Evolved More Favorably in Mexico Than Peru
Created by Richard L. Garner 3/9/2007 1 MINING TRENDS IN THE NEW WORLD 1500-1810 "God or Gold?" That was the discussion question on an examination that I took many years ago when I started my studies in Latin American history. I do not recall how I answered the question. But the phrase has stuck in my mind ever since. And it has worked its way into much of the history written about the conquest and post-conquest periods, especially the Spanish conquests. From the initial conquests in the Caribbean and certainly after the conquests of Mexico and Peru the search for minerals became more intensive even as the Spanish Crown and its critics argued over religious goals. In the middle of the sixteenth century after major silver discoveries in Mexico and Peru the value of the output of the colonial mines jumped significantly from a few million pesos annually (mainly from gold) to several tens of millions. Perhaps “Gold” (mineral output) had not yet trumped “God” (religious conversion) on every level and in every region, but these discoveries altered the economic and financial equation: mining while not the largest sector in terms of value or labor would become the vehicle for acquiring and consolidating wealth. Until the late seventeenth century Spanish America was the New World’s principal miner; but then the discovery of gold in Brazil accorded it the ranking gold producer in the New World while Spanish American remained the ranking silver producer. The rise of mining altered fundamentally the course of history in the New World for the natives, the settlers, and the rulers and had no less of an effect on the rest of the world. -
Technical Report Getchell Project NI 43-101 Technical Report Premier Gold Mines Limited and I-80 Gold Corp
AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. BC0767129 200 Granville Street, Suite 202 Vancouver BC V6C 1S4 Canada T +1 604 669 0044 E [email protected] W amcconsultants.com Technical Report Getchell Project NI 43-101 Technical Report Premier Gold Mines Limited and i-80 Gold Corp Humboldt County, Nevada, USA In accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects” of the Canadian Securities Administrators Qualified Persons: D Nussipakynova, P.Geo. P Greenhill, FAusIMM (CP) AMC Project 720031 Effective date 23 July 2020 Report date 22 January 2021 Unearth a smarter way Getchell Project NI 43-101 Technical Report Premier Gold Mines Limited and i-80 Gold Corp 720031 1 Summary 1.1 Introduction This Technical Report (the Report) provides an update of the Mineral Resource estimates and metallurgy of the Mineral Resources identified within the Getchell Project (Property) located in Humboldt County, Nevada, USA. The Report has been prepared by AMC Mining Consultants (Canada) Ltd. (AMC) of Vancouver, Canada on behalf of Premier Gold Mines Limited / i-80 Gold Corp (i-80 or the Companies). On 10 August 2020, Premier entered into a definitive purchase agreement with affiliates of Waterton Global Resource Management, Inc. to acquire from Waterton all of the outstanding membership interests of Osgood Mining Company LLC (OMC). The Property comprises a number of property parcels which collectively encompass 2,545 acres in the Potosi mining district. The four-square miles of land contain all areas of past gold production and the area of the currently estimated Mineral Resource. This area includes the historical Pinson Mine. -
Annual Information Form for the Year Ended December 31, 2018 Dated As of March 22, 2019 BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION
Barrick Gold Corporation Brookfield Place, TD Canada Trust Tower Suite 3700, 161 Bay Street, P.O. Box 212 Toronto, ON M5J 2S1 Annual Information Form For the year ended December 31, 2018 Dated as of March 22, 2019 BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS TERMS 4 REPORTING CURRENCY, FINANCIAL AND RESERVE INFORMATION 10 FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION 11 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION 14 THIRD PARTY DATA 15 GENERAL INFORMATION 15 Organizational Structure 15 Subsidiaries 16 Areas of Interest 18 General Development of the Business 18 History 18 Significant Acquisitions 18 Strategy 19 Recent Developments 21 Results of Operations in 2018 22 NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS 26 Production and Guidance 26 Reportable Operating Segments 26 Barrick Nevada 27 Pueblo Viejo (60% basis) 28 Lagunas Norte 29 Veladero (50% basis) 29 Turquoise Ridge (75% basis) 30 Acacia Mining plc (63.9% basis) 31 Pascua-Lama Project 32 Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources 33 Marketing and Distribution 46 Employees and Labor Relations 47 Competition 48 Sustainability 48 Operations in Emerging Markets: Corporate Governance and Internal Controls 49 Board and Management Experience and Oversight 50 Communications 51 - i - Internal Controls and Cash Management Practices 51 Managing Cultural Differences 52 Books and Records 52 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 52 Cortez Property 52 Goldstrike Property 58 Turquoise Ridge Mine 63 Pueblo Viejo Mine 69 Veladero Mine 76 Kibali Mine 86 Loulo-Gounkoto Mine Complex 93 EXPLORATION -
Golden Rules Making the Case for Responsible Mining
GOLDEN RULES Making the case for responsible mining A REPORT BY EARTHWORKS AND OXFAM AMERICA Contents Introduction: The Golden Rules 2 Grasberg Mine, Indonesia 5 Yanacocha Mine, Peru, and Cortez Mine, Nevada 7 BHP Billiton Iron Ore Mines, Australia 9 Hemlo Camp Mines, Canada 10 Mongbwalu Mine, the Democratic Republic of Congo 13 Rosia Montana Mine, Romania 15 Marcopper Mine, the Philippines, and Minahasa Raya and Batu Hijau Mines, Indonesia 17 Porgera Gold Mine, Papua New Guinea 18 Junín Mine, Ecuador 21 Akyem Mine, Ghana 22 Pebble Mine, Alaska 23 Zortman-Landusky Mine, Montana 25 Bogoso/Prestea Mine, Ghana 26 Jerritt Canyon Mine, Nevada 27 Summitville Mine, Colorado 29 Following the rules: An agenda for action 30 Notes 31 Cover: Sadiola Gold Mine, Mali | Brett Eloff/Oxfam America Copyright © EARTHWORKS, Oxfam America, 2007. Reproduction is permitted for educational or noncommercial purposes, provided credit is given to EARTHWORKS and Oxfam America. Around the world, large-scale metals mining takes an enormous toll on the health of the environment and communities. Gold mining, in particular, is one of the dirtiest industries in the world. Massive open-pit mines, some measuring as much as two miles (3.2 kilometers) across, generate staggering quantities of waste—an average of 76 tons for every ounce of gold.1 In the US, metals mining is the leading contributor of toxic emissions to the environment.2 And in countries such as Ghana, Romania, and the Philippines, mining has also been associated with human rights violations, the displacement of people from their homes, and the disruption of traditional livelihoods. -
The Porgera Mine – Papua New Guinea
To the Ministry of Finance Recommendation of 14 August 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Sources 2 3 The Council’s considerations 3 4 Accusations of severe environmental damage and other factors 4 5 The Porgera mine – Papua New Guinea 6 5.1 Background 6 5.2 Riverine tailings disposal 8 5.2.1 Sediment load 8 5.2.2 Discharge of heavy metals 11 5.3 Environmental effects on the flood plain and Lake Murray 13 5.3.1 Mercury pollution 16 5.3.2 Health and social effects associated with the tailings disposal 18 6 Barrick’s response to the Council 20 7 The Council’s assessment 22 8 Conclusion 25 9 Recommendation 25 1 Introduction At a meeting held on 4 October 2005, the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund – Global decided to assess whether investments in the company then known as Placer Dome, currently Barrick Gold Corporation, would imply a risk of the Fund contributing to severe environmental damage under the Ethical Guidelines, point 4.4. As of 31 December 2007 the Government Pension Fund – Global held shares worth some NOK 1,274 million in the company. Barrick Gold is a Canadian mining company, which, in several countries, has been accused of causing extensive environmental degradation. The Council has investigated whether riverine tailings disposal from the Porgera mine in Papua New Guinea generates severe environmental damage, and finds it established that the mining operation at Porgera entails considerable pollution. The Council attributes particular importance to the heavy metals contamination, especially from mercury, produced by the tailings. -
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5 – Cultural Resources 4.5 Cultural Resources This section identifies cultural and paleontological resources along the IC Project Alignment, identifies applicable significance thresholds, assesses the IC Project’s impacts to these resources and their significance, and recommends measures to avoid or substantially reduce any effects found to be potentially significant. Cultural resources are defined as any object or specific location of past human activity, occupation, or use that is identifiable through historical documentation, inventory, or oral evidence. Cultural resources can be separated into three categories: archaeological, building/structural, and traditional resources. Archaeological resources include prehistoric and historic remains of human activity. Prehistoric resources can be composed of lithic scatters, ceramic scatters, quarries, habitation sites, temporary camps/rock rings, ceremonial sites, and trails. Historic-era resources are typically those that are 50 years or older. Historic archaeological resources can consist of structural remains (e.g., concrete foundations), historic objects (e.g., bottles and cans), features (e.g., refuse deposits or scatters), and sites (e.g., resources that contain one or more of the aforementioned categories). Built environment resources range from historic buildings to canals, historic roads and trails, bridges, ditches, cemeteries, and electrical infrastructure, such as transmission lines, substations, and generating facilities. A traditional cultural resource is a resource associated with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community. They are rooted in a traditional community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. See Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for a discussion on cultural resources of potential importance to California Native American tribes. -
Auditor Credentials Form 2012
Auditor Credentials Form Facility Audited: African Barrick Gold Bulyanhulu Gold Mine, South Africa Date:- 9th – 13th February 2012 Lead Auditor Credentials Lead Auditor: Arend Hoogervorst EagleEnvironmental Tel:-+27317670244 PrivateBagX06 Fax:-+27317670295 KLOOF3640,SouthAfrica Email:[email protected] CertifyingOrganization:Name:RABQSA AuditorCertificationNumber:12529 Telephone Number: - +61 2 4728 4600 Address: P O Box 347, Penrith BC, NSW 2751, Australia Web Site Address: - www.rabqsa.com Minimum experience: 3 audits in past 7 years as Lead Auditor Year TypeofFacility,TypeofAuditLed Country&State/Province 1991 to 2007 – 111 Chemicals, manufacturing, oil and gas, South Africa, Botswana, audits (Audit logs mining (gold, coal, chrome), foods, and Mozambique, Mali, Namibia, Ghana held by RABQSA & heavy industry sectors. EMS, ICMI) Compliance, Environmental Due Diligence, HSEC, SHE audits. Lead Auditor in 81 audits. 2006 ICMI Cyanide Code Compliance Audits: Lead Auditor *Sasol Polymers Cyanide Plants 1 & 2 South Africa and Storage Areas (Production) *Sasol SiLog (Transportation) South Africa 2007 ICMI Cyanide Code Compliance Audits: Lead Auditor *AngloGold Ashanti West Gold Plant South Africa *AngloGold Ashanti East Gold Acid South Africa Float Plant *AngloGold Ashanti Noligwa Gold South Africa Plant *AngloGold Ashanti Kopanang Gold South Africa Plant *AngloGold Ashanti Savuka Gold Plant South Africa *AngloGold Ashanti Mponeng Gold South Africa Plant 2007 ICMI Cyanide Code Gap Analyses: Lead Auditor *Goldfields Tarkwa Gold Mine Ghana -
2019 Asset Handbook 2019 Asset Handbook
2019 Asset Handbook 2019 Asset Handbook Franco-Nevada Corporation’s 2019 Asset Handbook is intended to assist investors and analysts in their understanding of our business and portfolio of assets. Franco-Nevada Corporation is the leading gold royalty and streaming company with the largest and most diversified portfolio of assets. The Company’s business model provides investors with gold price and exploration optionality with less exposure to operating risks. Franco-Nevada has a strong balance sheet and uses its free cash flow to expand its portfolio and pay dividends. It trades under the symbol FNV on both the Toronto and New York stock exchanges. Since its IPO, Franco-Nevada’s share price has outperformed the gold price and all relevant gold equity benchmarks. Franco-Nevada is the gold investment that works. Information relating to projects, properties and their owners and operators presented in this Asset Handbook has been sourced from the public disclosure of the owners and operators of our assets available as of March 15, 2019. More current information may be available in our subsequent disclosure and our website. This Asset Handbook contains information about many of our assets, including those that may not currently be material to us. Also, the description and depiction of our business and assets have been simplified for presentation purposes. Dollar references are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted. This Asset Handbook should be read with reference to the explanatory notes and cautionary statements contained in the Additional Information section found at the end of this Asset Handbook. Please also refer to the additional supporting information and explanatory notes found in our Annual Information Form (“AIF”), our annual Management’s Discussion & Analysis (“MD&A“), and our Annual Report on Form 40-F available at www.sedar.com and www.sec.gov, respectively, and on our website at www.franco-nevada.com. -
Gold-Mining Multinationals and Community Interaction in Tanzania
Gold-mining Multinationals and Community Interaction in Tanzania Towards Localised Social Accountability Mary Mohamed Rutenge This dissertation is part of the Research Programme of CERES, Research School for Resource Studies for Devel- opment. Funded by the Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP). © Mary Mohamed Rutenge 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author. ISBN 978-90-6490-069-3 GOLD-MINING MULTINATIONALS AND COMMUNITY INTERACTION IN TANZANIA Towards Localised Social Accountability MULTINATIONALS IN DE GOUDMIJNBOUW EN HUN INTERACTIE MET DE LOKALE GEMEENSCHAP IN TANZANIA Op weg naar gelokaliseerde sociale verant- woording Thesis to obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam by command of the Rector Magnificus Professor dr H.A.P Pols and in accordance with the decision of the Doc- torate Board The public defence shall be held on Tuesday 20 December 2016 at 16.00 hrs by Mary Mohamed Rutenge born in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Doctoral committee Doctoral dissertation supervisors Prof. P. Knorringa Em. Prof. A.H.J. Helmsing Other members Prof. M.J. Spierenburg, Radboud University Nijmegen Prof. K. Arts, LLM Dr. K. Biekart Dedication To my husband Ernest and my sons Brian and Dennis Contents Dedication vi List of Tables, Figures, Maps and Appendices xi Acronyms xiii Acknowledgements xiv Abstract xvi Samenvatting -
Submission to the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries
Submission to the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries In regard to the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective in law and practice This Submission is in regard to the North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania and the Porgera Joint Venture Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea. March 2019 Catherine Coumans, Ph.D. Table of contents Introduction p. 1 1. Context p. 2 2. The relationship between the mines’ security, the company and the State p. 6 3. Alleged human rights abuses of the mines’ security forces p. 12 4. International, national, and company-level regulations, p. 15 mechanisms and procedures, and standards 5. Recommendations p. 20 Introduction This submission is made in support of an investigation and forthcoming report by the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (the Working Group)1 that examines the relationship between private military and security companies and extractive industry companies from a human rights perspective. Following communications with the Working Group, this submission covers issues related to excess use of force by private mine security and by police who participate in securing mines through memorandums of understanding between mine proponents and police agencies of the states hosting the mines. The sections below follow organizational and informational guidelines provided by the Working Group.2 This submission highlights that: state security forces deployed with private security often abuse their power in violation of the human rights of local populations; corporate-led monitoring and responsive measures are insufficient both to prevent abuse and to ensure meaningful accountability; greater attention needs to be given to crafting robust remedy mechanisms for those who have been harmed by both public and private security at mine sites; and, international soft law guidance on these issues (e.g. -
In Search of Justice Porgera Gold Mine
RESEARCH REPORT SEPTEMBER 2018 In Search of Justice Pathways to Remedy at the Porgera Gold Mine BSR | In Search of Justice: Pathways to Remedy at the Porgera Gold Mine | September 2018 1 About This Report This report explores how to provide remedy for persons harmed at or around the Porgera Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea. It describes existing remedy mechanisms, identifies barriers to access, and issues recommendations for improving access to remedy. The overall purpose of this report is to help rightsholders in Porgera receive effective remedy for harms they have endured in relation to the operations of the mine. This paper was researched and written by Dr. Margaret Jungk, with support from Ouida Chichester and Chris Fletcher. The BSR team undertook this study from June 2017 to August 2018, using the methodology described in part 1 below. The aim of the report is to produce recommendations that can serve as the basis for constructive dialogue among communities, the Papua New Guinean government, other interested stakeholders, and the company. The recommendations outlined here, and the issues raised for discussion, are those of BSR, based on extensive human rights analysis and interviews with stakeholders in Porgera, Port Moresby, and internationally. To achieve its intended impact—the advancement of human rights for Porgera rightsholders—we must be clear about the origin and formulation of this report. While BSR maintained full editorial control over the contents of this report, the report does not meet the standards of full independence, because BSR was commissioned and paid by Barrick Gold Corp. (Barrick), and its partially-owned subsidiary, Barrick (Niugini) Limited (BNL) to do this research. -
America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers
America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers 1 America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 Alabama .............................................................................................................. 12 Alabama Caves .................................................................................................. 13 Alabama Mines ................................................................................................. 16 Alabama Tunnels .............................................................................................. 16 Alaska ................................................................................................................. 18 Alaska Caves ..................................................................................................... 19 Alaska Mines ............................................................................................... 19 Arizona ............................................................................................................... 24 Arizona Caves ................................................................................................... 25 Arizona Mines ................................................................................................... 26 Arkansas ............................................................................................................ 28 Arkansas Caves ................................................................................................