LEVERAGE GROWTH. December TSX:TMM NYSE MKT:TGD VALUE

Transcription

1 LEVERAGE GROWTH December TSX:TMM NYSE MKT:TGD VALUE

2 Significant Turnaround in Progress New Leadership and Strategic Direction Focused on unlocking and creating value from existing assets SAN FRANCISCO MINE Produced 75koz at $812/oz AISC for Q1-Q3 2016; Increased 2016 production guidance to 90, ,000 oz gold; Generated ~$24M mine-level free cash flow for 9 mos. at avg. gold price of ~$1,224/oz New mine plan forecasts production of ~450, ,000 oz from 2016 to 2023 at $ /oz cash costs & all-in costs below $1,000/oz Increased reserves by 48% from previous estimate; at $1,350 gold price could add ~70% more in-pit M&I ounces vs. current estimate, at similar grade ANA PAULA PROJECT Completed El Sauzal plant disassembly on-time & on-budget Feasibility & permitting started expected completion in 2017 $9.2M budget for funded from current treasury and operating cash flow Construction-ready in early 2018 Excellent under-explored potential on landholdings in the Guerrero Gold Belt Sold the Caballo Blanco project (non-core) for total consideration of $17.5M FINANCIAL Repaid $10M facility to Sprott, Goldcorp, and $1.5M to Lundin Reduced corporate G&A by 35% from 2015 levels YTD $51M improvement in working capital (includes bought deal), removed $26.5M of financial liability Current cash of $33M and zero debt $26.5 in financial liability 1

3 Overview Capital Structure Shares Outstanding 355.6M Warrants (C$0.35 strike) (C$0.70 strike) 10.0M 18.2M Fully Diluted Shares 383.8M Recent Share Price Market Capitalization Balance Sheet Cash at November 30, 2016 C$0.45 C$160M US$33M Debt $0 SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco Mine Sonora, Mexico Status: Operating 2016E: 90, ,000 oz gold at ~$750 $800/oz cash costs Major Shareholders Goldcorp Sentry Investments Lundin Group Sun Valley Gold Aga Nola AG ANA PAULA Ana Paula Project Guerrero, Mexico Status: FS Underway $1,200/oz PEA pit: 1.4 Moz at 2.2 g/t 2

4 Timmins Leverage, Growth, Value Leverage at San Francisco Double leverage with improving gold price NPV +35% with a $100/oz increase in gold price $1,350 oz gold price could increase reserves 2X ~400,000 oz Operations extended to ,000 ozs recovered, mine level costs below $1,000/oz (includes all mine capex) Low Cost Growth with Ana Paula 116,000 oz/yr at $507/oz AISC (1); significant near-mine & regional exploration potential Readily financeable, best in class Capex/NPV ratio of 0.5, short payback, able to optimize debt/equity in financing Low capex ($121 M) with robust economics and high IRR = very attractive for project financing Prime location in a rich mining district, adjacent to Torex Undervalued vs. Peer Group Trading at x NAV vs. junior producers at 1.2x and developers at 0.8x Potential for a significant re-rate with rising gold price, continued operational success, and de-risking of Ana Paula as feasibility and permitting are completed through 2016 & 2017 Source: (1) Ana Paula PEA dated February 2,

5 SF Mine Updated Mine Plan Production (koz) Cash Cost ($/oz) Cash Cost + Capex ($/oz) F 2017F 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F 2022F 2023F Cash Cost ALL waste expensed $750- $800/oz $900- $950/oz $1,000- $1,050/oz $1,050- $1,100/oz $1,150- $1,200/oz $750- $800/oz $700- $750/oz $450- $500/oz Cash Cost + Capex ~$790- $840/oz $960- $1,010/oz $1,025- $1,075/oz $1,090- $1,140/oz $1,185- $1,235/oz $785- $835/oz $725- $775/oz $530- $580/oz 450, ,000 oz through 2023 with LOM all-in costs below $1,000 Source: San Francisco NI dated July 1,

6 SF Mine Significant Gold Price Leverage Cumulative Mine Level EBITDA US$M $300 $250 $1,200/oz $1,300/oz $1,400/oz $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2016F 2017F 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F 2022F 2023F A 17% increase (from $1,200 to $1,400/oz) in gold price, increases EBITDA 68% Additional upside with potential ~400,000 oz added to reserves at + $1,400/oz Source: San Francisco NI dated July 1,

7 Ana Paula Our Next Gold Mine High grade, open pit Excellent infrastructure Straightforward permitting Robust economics High capital efficiency, ease of financing; limited dilution Feasibility and permitting underway Construction to begin Q Significant upside potential 6

8 Ana Paula PEA Highlights Production Metrics Production Profile Total Ore Mined 17,800,000 tonnes 200 1,000 Strip Ratio 2.60 waste:ore Mining Rate 23,385 tpd Plant Throughput Head Grade 6,000 tpd 2.24 g/t gold 6.89 g/t silver Recovery Average Annual Production (First 5 years) 75% gold 50% silver 130,800 oz gold 298,600 oz silver Life of Mine 8.2 years Total LOM Production 957,000 oz gold 1,961,000 oz silver Payable Gold (koz) Cumulative Gold (koz) Source: Ana Paula PEA dated February 2,

9 Ana Paula PEA, Low Costs, High Margin Operating Cost Summary Mining (US$/t processed) $6.00 Processing (US$/t processed) $15.52 G&A (US$/t processed) $2.34 Total Operating Cost (US$/t processed) $23.98 Total Cash Cost (net of by-product) $442/oz Total AISC (net of by-product) $479/oz Margin (US$) $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 Gold Price $1,200/oz >$720/oz Margins 2016 Total Cash Cost Curve ($/oz) (1) $600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 First Quartile Cash Costs $400 $200 Total Cash Costs $442oz AISC $479/oz $200 $0 25% 50% 75% 100% $0 Source: Ana Paula PEA dated February 2, 2016 (1) Source: WoodMac 2016 total cash costs (including royalties) 8

10 Ana Paula PEA Economics After-Tax Cash Flow US$M at US$1,200/oz Gold Economic Highlights US$ Gold Price $/oz $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 Pre-Tax NPV 5% $335M $408M $480M $553M After-Tax NPV 5% $201M $248M $295M $342M Pre-Tax IRR 51% 59% 66% 73% After-Tax IRR 37% 43% 48% 53% Pre-Tax Payback Years After-Tax Payback Years After-Tax NPV and IRR Sensitivity to Gold Price $600 $500 $400 $300 60% 50% 40% 30% $200 20% $100 10% $0 0% After-Tax NPV 5% US$M After-Tax IRR Source: Ana Paula PEA dated February 2,

11 Ana Paula Exploration Upside 50,000 hectare land package with numerous potential targets High grade breccia mineralization extends to depth Tenure of mineralization indicates good margins can be achieved with underground mining Multiple intercepts with grade sufficient to support underground mining Meaningful underground kicker to open-pit production Below Pit Bottom Drill Highlights Drill hole From To Interval (m) Au g/t Ag g/t AP AP AP AP AP AP AP

12 Forecasted Gold Production Profile Rising production & declining cost profile, strong free cash generation Source: (1) Ana Paula PEA dated February 2, 2016 Note: Midpoint of estimated cash costs shown 11

13 Timmins Value Opportunity Timmins is trading at 0.3x 0.4x P/NAV vs. junior producers at 1.2x & developers at 0.8x (3) Even with very conservative multiples applied to its assets there is potential for meaningful uplift at current gold prices ~67% higher than current share price Discount multiple applied on Ana Paula should reduce as the project continues to de-risk during FS/permitting ( ) Sources: (1) SF = consensus NAV; (2) AP = February 2, 2016 PEA; (3) Source: Capital IQ analyst consensus 12

14 Timmins Highlights Undervalued Generating free cash flow Significant leverage to gold price High grade, high margin growth at Ana Paula World class mining district in a preferred jurisdiction Straightforward permitting + attractive economics for project financing = Near-term production potential 13

15 TSX:TMM NYSE MKT:TGD Contact Us: Alex Tsakumis Vice President Corporate Development

16 Leadership Management Current Position Board of Directors Experience Mark Backens Interim CEO & Director Bryan Coates (Chairman) President of Osisko Gold Royalties, Director of Golden Queen Mining and Niogold Arturo Bonillas President & Founder Mark Backens Interim CEO and Director of Timmins Gold and Director of Anthem United Inc. Taj Singh VP Engineering, Projects, & Business Development George Brack Chairman of Capstone Mining and Director of Silver Wheaton Alex Tsakumis VP Corporate Development Anthony Hawkshaw Director of Regulus Resources Miguel Bonilla VP Finance Mexico Stephen Lang Chairman of Centerra Gold and Director of International Tower Hill Miguel Soto VP Exploration Paula Rogers Director of Neutri Sci International Leslie Kapusianyk Corporate Secretary Jose Vizquerra Benevides Executive Vice President, Strategic Development & Director of Osisko Mining Exploration Development Production Financial and Capital Markets 15

17 SF Mine 2016 Results FINANCIAL Q Q Q OPERATING Q Q Q Gold Sales (Au Ozs) 23,327 26,474 24,667 Ore Processed (Dry t) 1,791,399 1,939,567 2,003,712 Avg. Realized Gold Price (/oz) $1,338 $1,232 $1,160 Avg Grade Processed (g/t Au) Revenue $31.2 $33.1M $28.7M Low Grade Stockpiles (g/t Au) - 0 3,966 By Product Cash Cost (/oz) $785 $681 $761 Avg. Grade Stockpiled (g/t Au) All in Sustaining Cost (/oz) $846 $761 $848 Waste Mined (t) 3,724,904 3,729,153 4,708,661 Profit (Loss) from Operations $29.9 $8.7M ($8.6M) Total Mined (t) 5,469,985 5,577,828 6,707,981 Net Earnings (Loss) After Taxes $29.7 $6.4M ($10.7M) Strip Ratio Earnings (Loss) Per Share Adjusted $0.09 $0.02 ($0.03) Gold Produced (oz) 24,052 25,863 25,120 Cash Flow from Operations $9.8 $11.5M $2.4M Silver Produced (oz) 13,868 14,884 14,671 Cash $18.5 $12.5M $10.7M Avg. Ore Processed (t/d) 19,478 21,314 22,019 All $ figures in US$ 16

18 SF Mine / AP Project Reserves & Resources SAN FRANCISCO (1) Cut-off (g/t Au) Tonnes (kt) Gold Grade (g/t Au) Silver Grade (g/t Ag) Contained Gold (koz Au) Contained Silver (koz Ag) Proven & Probable Reserves (at $1,250/oz gold, with mining recovery & dilution) San Francisco Pit Proven , San Francisco Pit Probable , La Chicharra Pit Proven , La Chicharra Pit Probable Total 32, Low Grade Stockpile 7, Measured & Indicated Resources (at $1,350/oz gold) San Francisco Pit Measured , San Francisco Pit Indicated , La Chicharra Pit Measured , La Chicharra Pit Indicated , Total 55, , San Francisco Pit Inferred La Chicharra Pit Inferred ANA PAULA (2) Cut-off (g/t Au) Tonnes (kt) Gold Grade (g/t Au) Silver Grade (g/t Ag) Contained Gold (koz Au) Contained Silver (koz Ag) Measured & Indicated Resources (at $1,450/oz gold and $23/oz silver) Measured , ,177 3,587 Indicated , ,489 Total 41, ,859 7,076 Inferred , Source: (1) San Francisco NI dated July 1, 2016; (2) Ana Paula PEA dated February 2,

19 Cautionary Statement on Forward Looking Information All figures are in US$ unless otherwise specified Certain statements contained herein may constitute forward-looking statements (or forward looking information ) and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements are statements which relate to future events. Such statements include estimates, forecasts and statements with respect to, among other things, business and financial prospects, financial multiples, accretion estimates, estimated future production and cash costs, future trends, plans, strategies, objectives and expectations, including with respect to costs, capital requirements, availability of financing, production, exploration and reserves and resources, projected production from the San Francisco Mine, the Ana Paula Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA), including estimated internal rate of return and projected production, exploitation activities and potential and future operations. Information inferred from the interpretation of drilling results and information concerning mineral resource estimates may also be deemed to be forward-looking statements, as it constitutes a prediction of what might be found to be present when, and if, a project is actually developed. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as may, should, expects, plans, anticipates, believes, estimates, predicts, potential, or continue or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are based on a number of assumptions, including assumptions regarding the value of Timmins Gold s assets; the successful completion of development projects, planned expansions or other projects within the timelines anticipated and at anticipated production levels; the accuracy of reserve and resource, grade, mine life, cash cost, NPV and IRR estimates and other assumptions, projections and estimates made in the technical reports for San Francisco and Ana Paula; that mineral resources can be developed as planned; interest and exchange rates; that required financing will be obtained; general economic conditions; that labour disputes, flooding, ground instability, fire, failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated and other risks of the mining industry will not be encountered; the price of gold, silver and other metals; competitive conditions in the mining industry; title to mineral properties; and changes in laws, rules and regulations applicable to Timmins Gold. Although management of Timmins Gold believes that the assumptions made and the expectations represented by such statements are reasonable, there can be no assurance that a forwardlooking statement herein will prove to be accurate. Actual results and developments may differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained herein and even if such actual results and developments are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences or effects. Factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include changes in market conditions; actual results being materially different than reserve and resource, grade, mine life, NPV, IRR and cash cost estimates and the other projections and estimates made in the technical reports for San Francisco and Ana Paula; variations in grade or recovery rates; risks relating to international operations; fluctuations in gold, silver and other metal prices and currency exchange rates; failure to obtain required financing; inability to successfully complete development projects, planned expansions or other projects within the timelines anticipated; natural disasters; adverse changes to general economic conditions or applicable laws, rules and regulations; changes in project parameters; the possibility of project cost overruns or unanticipated costs and expenses; labour disputes, flooding, ground instability, fire and other risks of the mining industry; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; the risk of an undiscovered defect in title or other adverse claim; and the risk that results of exploration activities will be different than anticipated. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information due to its inherent uncertainty. Except as required by applicable law, Timmins Gold does not intend to update any forward-looking statements to conform these statements to actual results. 18

20 Important Information Regarding Technical Disclosure Technical Disclosure Timmins Gold Taj Singh, M.Eng, P.Eng, CPA, a Qualified Person under National Instrument and the Vice President of Business Development of Timmins Gold, approved the technical disclosure and verified the data disclosed regarding the San Francisco Mine and the Ana Paula project contained herein. For more information regarding the San Francisco Mine, see the technical report entitled NI F1 Technical Report Updated Resources and Reserves and Mine Plan for the San Francisco Gold Project, Sonora, Mexico, report date February 29, 2016 which is available on Timmins Gold s SEDAR profile at Mineral resources were estimated using a cutoff grade of 0.20 g/t gold for the San Francisco deposit and and La Chicharra deposit. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. For more information regarding Ana Paula, see the Ana Paula PEA entitled Ana Paula Project Preliminary Economic Assessment, Guerrero State, Mexico, report date March 23, 2016 (readdressed to Timmins Gold as of May 26, 2015) which is available on Timmins Gold s SEDAR profile. Mineral resources were estimated using a 0.46 g/t AuEq cutoff. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. A reader is advised that the Ana Paula PEA has only been intended to provide an initial, high-level review of the project. The PEA mine plan and economic model include the use of inferred mineral resources which are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Cautionary Note to United States Investors Timmins Gold is subject to the reporting requirements of the applicable Canadian securities laws, and as a result reports its mineral reserves and resources according to Canadian standards. Canadian reporting requirements for disclosure of mineral properties are governed by National Instrument ( NI ). The definitions of NI are adopted from those given by the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. U.S. reporting requirements are governed by Industry Guide 7 ( Guide 7 ) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC ). These reporting standards have similar goals in terms of conveying an appropriate level of confidence in the disclosures being reported, but embody different approaches and definitions. For example, under Industry Guide 7, mineralization may not be classified as a reserve unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time the reserve determination is made. In particular, Timmins Gold reports resources in accordance with NI While the terms Mineral Resource, Measured Mineral Resource, Indicated Mineral Resource and Inferred Mineral Resource are recognized and required by Canadian securities laws, they are not defined terms under Guide 7 and, generally, U.S. companies are not permitted to report resources in documents filed with the SEC. As such, certain information contained in this presentation concerning descriptions of mineralization and resources under Canadian standards is not comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the SEC. In addition, an Inferred Mineral Resource has a great amount of uncertainty as to its existence and as to its economic and legal feasibility, and 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 other economic studies beyond Preliminary Economic Assessment. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves, and it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable. In addition, the definitions of Proven Mineral Reserves and Probable Mineral Reserves under NI differ in certain respects from the standards of Guide 7. 19