Thunder Gold Corp. · TSXV:TGOL
Thunder Gold — Investor Presentation (June 2024)
32 slides from Thunder Gold's investor presentation, June 2024
Slide 1: Right Project, Right Time, Right Team
Right Project Right Time Right Team
Slide 2: Forward Looking Statement
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT C erta in sta tem en ts in c lu d ed in th is p resen ta tion a re forw ard -look in g sta tem en ts w h ic h a re m a d e p u rsu a n t to th e “safe h a rb ou r” p rovision s of th e U n ited S ta tes P riva te S ec u rities L itig a tion R eform A c t of 1995. Th ey in c
Slide 3: Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intrusion-Related Deposit Signature L a rg e-ton n a g e, low -g ra d e (“L TL G ”) 01 02 W idesprea d, low -g ra de, g old m in era liza tion esta blish ed by +4 0 ,0 0 0 m etres of drillin g A ll n ec essa ry in fra stru c tu re is in -p la c e L ow d rillin g cost ($250 per m et
Slide 4: Location and Infrastructure
LOCATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Ontario 48 km OVERVIEW L e ss th a n 50 k m from Th u n d e r B a y, O n ta rio (p op . +10 0 ,0 0 0 ) Thunder Bay offers: In te rn a tion a l A irp ort; G re a t L a k e s S e a p ort; N a tion a l R a ilw a y a c c e ss Tra n s-C a n a d a H ig h w a y Tow e r M ou n ta
Slide 5: The Benefit of Infrastructure
THE BENEFIT OF INFRASTRUCTURE Critical Infrastructure C om parison to five (5) AC TIV E "LTLG" projects, in 10 0 0 90 0 no set order: 800 kilometres 70 0 60 0 M oss Lak e (GSH R ) O ntario 50 0 Tow er (M E ) O ntario 400 30 0 B lack w ater ((AR TG) B ritish C olum bia 20 0 R og ue (SGD ) Yuk on and
Slide 6: Regional Geology
REGIONAL GEOLOGY OVERVIEW S h e b a n d ow a n G re e n ston e B e lt (“S G B ”) East Coldstream Shebandowan Mine A rc h e a n g re e n ston e b e lt Coldstream Tower e xte n d s ove r 150 k m from Mountain Th u n d e r B a y O n ta rio to Moss Lake th e M in n e sota -O n t. b ord e r. (5.1 M oz Au
Slide 7: Local Geology
LOCAL GEOLOGY P Target 25 samples across 100m length ~2,650 ha – 100% owned 6.0 g/t Au (average) Highest sample = 27.0 g/t Au 190 h ole s – 41,000 metres drilled L e ss th a n 4 0 % of c la im a re a is p rosp e c te d D ia m on d d rillin g limited to 1,800-metre long x 500-metre wide c orrid or of
Slide 8: Tower Mountain Selected Drill Results
TOWER MOUNTAIN SELECTED DRILL RESULTS UV Target (2002) U V Ta rg et (20 0 2-20 0 7) F e ld sp a r P orp h yry h os t B e n c h Ta rg et 20 0 5-20 11 M ixe d s ye n ite -volc a n ic h os t E llen & A Ta rg et (20 21-22) M ixe d s ye n ite -volc a n ic h os t 2023 drilling indicates P Target interpret
Slide 9: Mineralogy
MINERALOGY SUMMARY G old is in tim a te ly a ssoc ia te d w ith p yrite , oc c u rrin g in tw o form s 1. A s m ic ron -sc a le in c lu sion s w ith in fin e , m ic ron d isse m in a te d a n d /or ve in -h oste d p yrite (A a n d B a t le ft); 2. A s m ic ron to m m -sc a le g ra in s h oste d a lo
Slide 10: Statistical Analysis
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BENCH TARGET ALL 5.0m COMPOSITES BY BENCH -HIGH CHARGEABLE 5.0m LITHOLOGY COMPOSITES BY LITHOLOGY • To-d a te , g old m in e ra liza tion is a g n ostic re la tive to lith olog y, a lte ra tion or a n y c om b in a tion of th e se tw o ob se rva b le fe a tu re s; • Th e ONLY ob
Slide 11: Proven Geophysical Vectors
PROVEN GEOPHYSICAL VECTORS M A G N E TIC S IN D U C E D P O L A R IZA TIO N C H A R G E A B IL ITY • A c c u ra te ly m a p s th e in tru s ion , p a rtic u la rly th e p h a s e s w ith e le va te d • A c c u ra te ly m a p s e le va te d p yrite c on te n t; m a g n e tite ; • P yrite d ire c tly
Slide 12: Deposit Paragenesis
DEPOSIT PARAGENESIS D e p osition of In te rm e d iate V olc an ic H os t R oc k s TM IC In tru sion (m u lti-p h ase in tru sion ) F e ld spa r P orp h yry In tru sion (g old b e arin g ) B rittle D e form ation (H yd roth erm al B re c c iation ) A lb ite A lte ra tion C a rb on itiza tion – S e r
Slide 13: Grade Predictability
GRADE PREDICTABILITY SUMMARY TOWER MOUNTAIN DRILLING RESULTS (Composite data sorted randomly into equal bins) ALL COMPOSITES (5.0m) 190 h oles 7,90 1 c om p osites A vg . g ra d e 0 .30 7 g /t A u A vg . g ra d e (c a p p ed ) 0 .24 2 g /t A u 110-UV TREND 154 h oles (8 1%) 6,58 3 c om p osites (8 3
Slide 14: Preliminary Metallurgy
PRELIMINARY METALLURGY Metallurgical Results – Tower Mountain • R epresentative half-core sam p les • S ta n d a rd b ottle roll tests – 4 0 % b y w eig h t in solution @ 1.0 g N aC N /L solution ; 72-h our test • H ea d g rad es ran g ed from 0 .325 g /t to 3.599 g /t Au an d averag ed 1.124 g /t A
Slide 15: Great Bear's LP Fault Discovery
GREAT BEAR’S LP FAULT DISCOVERY G rea t B e a r R e sou rc es’ L P Z on e R e p orted D rill R e su lts S e p tem ber 3, 20 19 to A p ril 4 , 20 21 30 0 0 0 $ 25.0 0 MC = $977 M MC = $878 M Great Bear Resources A c q u ire d b y K in ross G old in D e c e m b e r 20 21 for C u m u la tive M e ta l F
Slide 16: Comparison of Metal Factors
COMPARISON OF METAL FACTORS Comparison of Reported Metal Factor Results during Discovery Phase Great Bear’s LP Fault vs. Tower Mountain (300 entries) 250 TM O u tlie r Metal Factor: th e p rod u c t of re p orte d g ra d e m u ltip lie d L im it b y th e re p orte d in te rva l le n g th M e ta l F
Slide 17: Cumulative Metal Factor Comparison
CUMULATIVE METAL FACTOR COMPARISON C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor C om pa rison G rea t B e a r’s L P Z on e vs . Th u n d er G old ’s Tow er M ou n tain 10 0 0 0 90 0 0 M e ta l F a c tors for G re a t B e a r’s L P F a u lt D e p osit, C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor (A u g ra m m e tre s)
Slide 18: Cumulative Metal Factor Comparison
CUMULATIVE METAL FACTOR COMPARISON Cumulative Metal Factor Comparison 10 0 0 0 90 0 0 C om p a rison of C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor of Tow e r M ou n ta in (“TM ”) TG O L – M a rk e t C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor (A u g ra m m e tre s ) 8000 C a p ita liza tion (“M C ”) = C $ 5.1 M M to
Slide 19: District Comparables
DISTRICT COMPARABLES C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor (U n c a pped ) C u m u la tive M e ta l F a c tor (C a pp ed ) 60 0 0 30 0 0 M e ta l F a c tor (A u g ra m -m e tre s) M e ta l F a c tor (A u g ra m -m e tre s) 50 0 0 250 0 4000 20 0 0 30 0 0 150 0 20 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 50 0 0 0 1 11 21 31 4
Slide 20: Comps - Physical Properties
COMPS - PHYSICAL PROPERTIES P H YS IC A L C O M P S (D E P O S IT) A V E R A G E R E P O R TE D G O L D G R A D E S 10 0 90 1.0 0 80 0 .90 70 0 .8 0 60 0 .70 0 .60 A u (g /t) 50 0 .50 40 0 .4 0 30 0 .30 20 0 .20 10 0 .10 0 - B on d W ork In d e x (k W h /t) M eta llu rg ic a l R ec overy (%) A verag
Slide 21: Comps - Market Valuation
COMPS - MARKET VALUATION C U R R E N T M IN E R A L R E S O U R C E E S TIM A TE S V A L U A TIO N C O M P S 14 0 0 14 .0 0 120 0 12.0 0 10 0 0 A u (oz x 1,0 0 0 .0 0 0 ) 10 .0 0 800 8 .0 0 60 0 6.0 0 400 4 .0 0 20 0 2.0 0 0 S h a re s I/O (x1,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 )) M a rk et C a p ($ x1,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ) - T
Slide 22: All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC)
ALL-IN SUSTAINING COSTS (AISC) All In Sustaining Cost per Au oz ($US) relative to Reserve Grade $2,000 18 All In Sustaining Cost (AISC) per ounnce $1,800 16 $1,600 14 $1,400 $1,200 12 M a c a ssa re se rve g ra d e = 16.26 g /t A u 10 Au g/t $1,000 8 M a c a ssa A IS C (3 yr) = $ 8 8 7/oz $800 6 $60
Slide 23: High-Grade vs. Low-Grade
HIGH-GRADE vs. LOW-GRADE D e tou r L a k e - A c tu a l v. P re d ic te d G old G ra d e Detour Lake Yr. 1-6 (Q3, 2013 to Q2, 2019) Ye a rs 1 -6 A c tu a l g old g ra d e s (Yr.1-6) w e re within + /- 15% of 1.10 p re d ic te d g ra d e s, w e ll w ith in in d u stry a c c e p te d 1.00 fe a sib ili
Slide 24: 2024 Objectives
2024 OBJECTIVES C om p le te m in im u m C $2.0 M fin an c in g : P h ase O n e D rillin g P rog ram E a s te rn In tru s ive C on ta c t in c l. P ta rg e t (6 .0 g /t A u ) 1,8 0 0 m s trik e le n g th 20 0 m s e c tion lin e s w ith 2 h ole s (50 0 m ) p e r s e c tion ) Ta rg e t 10 0 a n d 20
Slide 25: Gold Resource per Metre-Drilled
GOLD RESOURCE PER METRE-DRILLED TOTAL GOLD IN RESOURCES (ALL CATEGORIES) PER METRE DRILLED 180 S ixte e n (16) L TL G C om p s: C a n a d a a n d U S 160 M in im u m = 10 A u oz p e r m e tre -d rille d 140 M a xim u m = 156 A u oz p e r m e tre -d rille d 120 Average = 35 Au oz per metre-drilled (R
Slide 26: The Right Team
THE RIGHT TEAM 01 Issu e d a n d O u tstan d in g 173,30 0 ,8 18 Management and Board of Directors 02 O ption s ($0 .0 5 - $0 .15 strik e pric e) 10 ,4 65,0 0 0 Wes Hanson P.Geo., President, CEO & Director 0 3 W a rra n ts ($ 0 .0 6 - $ 0 .12 strik e pric e) 11,0 58 ,70 5 4 0 yea rs of exp erien c e
Slide 27: Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intrusion-Related Deposit Signature L a rg e-ton n a g e, low -g ra d e (“L TL G ”) 01 02 W idesprea d, low -g ra de, g old m in era liza tion esta blish ed by +4 0 ,0 0 0 m etres of drillin g A ll n ec essa ry in fra stru c tu re is in p la c e L ow d rillin g cost ($250 per m etr
Slide 28: Contacts
CONTACTS THUNDER GOLD CORPORATION 128 – 110 0 M em orial Ave. Th u n der B ay, O n tario P 7B 4 A3 Wes Hanson, P.Geo. David Speck P residen t & C E O C F O & C orporate S ecretary w h an son @ th u n derg oldcorp.com dspeck @ th u n derg oldcorp.com +1 64 7-20 2-768 6 +1 64 7-968 -8 369 Visible gold
Slide 29: Appendices
APPENDICIES Tow e r M ou n ta in P rop e rty H is toric a l c ore lib ra ry Thunder Gold Corp. (TSX.V: TGOL , OTCQB: TGOLF , FRA: Z25) Q1 2024 – Corporate Presentation
Slide 30: Comps – World – 2023
COMPS – WORLD - 2023 JUNIOR MINING HUB; REPORTED DRILL RESULTS (METAL FACTOR) Tower JAN 1 -DEC 31,2023 Mountain 10000 2004-2023 1000 Metal Factor (Au gram-metres) 90% of total population (317 data points) 100 10 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Interval Count (#) Thunder Gold Corp. (TSX.V: TG
Slide 31: Large Tonnage, Low Grade Comps
LARGE TONNAGE, LOW GRADE COMPS Market Capitalization : Measured, Indicated & Inferred Resources R esou rc e-R eserve estim a tes sou rc ed from th e la test pu blish ed Tec h n ic a l R eports a va ila ble for ea c h projec t a s of F ebru a ry 10 , 20 23; exc ept for D G C a n d R R A ll M a rk et
Slide 32: Market Capitalization (C$ Million)
DRILLED METRES : TOTAL RESOURCE AL L d a ta sou rc ed from th e la test pu blish ed Tec h n ic a l R eports a va ila ble for ea c h projec t a s of F ebru a ry 10 , 20 23; exc ept for D G C a n d R R 1. All d a ta sou rc ed from th e D etou r L a k e F ea sibility S tu d y, d a ted J u n e 20 10 . 2