NEWGEN21-Proceedings-Full

TSX: ME | OTC: MEAUF | Xetra: MOP



Oblique view; Drilling & mineral resources









View to NE


Garrison Open Pit East
Tower gold project
• 1.82 Moz Ind
• 1.06 Moz inf

• Current resource estimates
• Open pit and underground resources

• Drill traces: all drilling to date
• Large areas not drill tested Windjammer South Open Pit
West • 1.10 Moz Ind
• Excellent expansion potential
• 1.03 Moz inf
• Focussed on known major structures
Golden Highway Underground
• Not second order structures
• 0.63 Moz Ind
• Exploration Upside • 2.13 Moz inf

55 Open Pit
• 0.41 Moz Ind
• 0.18 Moz inf










monetagold.com 41

TSX: ME | OTC: MEAUF | Xetra: MOP



Conclusions



Tower Gold Project



• Most of the area is covered by overburden
• Precluded historical prospectors from locating mineralization

• What worked ?

• Magnetics defined structures and main rock units. Located BIF
• Basal till sampling located gold below till
• Defining mineralization paragenesis
• Stratigraphic column (geological interpretation)
• Defining structures
Timmins core facility
• Drilling and orientation of core
• Preserving core
• Consolidation of ground

• Revisiting core with re-interpretation
• Significant upside for resource expansion

• What did not work ?
• IP surveys, no major sulphide dissemination
• EM
• Locating alteration with magnetics

• No geological interpretation
Garrison core facility



monetagold.com 42

TSX: ME | OTC: MEAUF | Xetra: MOP
























Contact Information


Thank you
Linda Armstrong, Investor Relations

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 647.456.9223






















monetagold.com 43

NewGenGold Conference Nov 2021





Lake Rebecca Gold Project: An Intriguing >1.1Moz Gneiss Belt Discovery
ASX: AOP













Lake Rebecca Gold Project WA




Fire
Smoke






















SECTION 3: WEST AUSTRALIAN PROJECTS

Apollo and Lake Rebecca






➢ 2009/2010 purchased Lake Rebecca Gold Project

2
➢ 2010 purchased 3,000km greenfield Cote d’Ivoire

➢ 2010 to 2017 Cote d’Ivoire focus, seasonal breaks


➢ 2012 first RC drilling – hits & misses

➢ 2017 first diamond hole at Rebecca Prospect:


17.84 @ 15.95g/t Au & 49m @ 4.57g/t Au


➢ Jennifer structure takes shape

➢ Pivot to WA, staged exit Cote d’Ivoire


➢ Ramp-up RC & diamond drilling, from campaign to steady-state

➢ 2020 Maiden 1Moz Mineral Resource estimate (MRE) (three deposits, pit constrained)


➢ 2021 Updated MRE : 29.1Mt @ 1.2g/t Au for 1.1Moz, 74% Indicated, incl. 840,000oz at Rebecca


➢ Disseminated sulphide system, gneissic host rock – unusual + implications










2

The how and why





Discovery took some time to tease out -


➢ Competing projects - Cote d’Ivoire


➢ Evolving interpretations – right but wrong >30Moz here…


➢ Tricky regolith


➢ Drilling limitations


➢ Cash limitations




And has some recurring takeaways - ..let’s
review
ground
➢ Structural setting > host rock here


➢ Field DD - understand regolith & ‘find the


collars’ – Rebecca grid out by 40m


➢ Persistence & luck


➢ Importance of the Don’t Argue





3

Great location & permissive structural setting















Louisa
Project
(Ni/Cu)










WESTERN
AUSTRALIA






enlargement



Kalgoorlie
Lake Rebecca Lake Rebecca

Gold Project Gold Project







4

What we saw in the data 2009





✓ On Laverton Tectonic Zone, multiple >1Moz deposits


✓ Proximal to Pinjin Fault, major N-S + late NE structures Rebecca

13m @ 2.96g/t Au
✓ Aeromag. imagery - good resolution of ‘sequence’ & 19m @ 1.15g/t Au Rebecca

complex folding


✓ Good dataset with soil, RAB & aircore, RC + 3 x DDH


❖ Soil = offset anomalies, unreliable in cover


❖ RAB/AC = unreliable (given 1,900 drillholes/39,000m)


✓ RC (159) & DDH (3) = widespread low-grade Au +/- Cu 20m @ 1.76g/t Au
11m @ 3.18g/t Au
anomalism & >1.0g/t intercepts

Duchess
✓ Promising hits at three prospects: Duchess, Duke

(previously ‘Redskin’) & Rebecca 30m @ 1.39g/t Au
25m @ 1.59g/t Au
✓ Recent and paleo cover on leached saprolite Duke


Under-explored in fresh rock









5

What we saw in the data - Duchess

















Example RCLR0110:
61m @ 0.26g/t Au EOH















➢ Widespread >0.10g/t Au anomalism below depletion

➢ ~50 degree west-dipping zones >0.25g/t Au


➢ Drill density insufficient to define structures

➢ Appearance of a significant gold system


➢ Occasional >10g/t Au sample


Potential for structurally-controlled higher-grade positions?




6

What we saw on the ground




➢ Initially unattractive, exposure mostly sub-crop
pegmatite, barren quartz & oxidised gneiss


➢ No historical workings


➢ …but sub-crop pink silicified gneiss at up-dip
positions at Duke & Duchess


➢ Yellow oxidation of old fresh RC chips

➢ …clearly disseminated sulphides over wide

intervals, not apparent in database & reports
































7

Rebecca - first RC 2012




➢ First Apollo RC at Rebecca prospect

➢ Pre-drilling interpretation

moderate west dip, as supported
by Au zones, amphibolite units and
exposure along strike



➢ 42m @ 7.75g/t Au RCLR0161

➢ High-grade zones, free gold


➢ Strongly sulphidic granodiorite gneiss


➢ Sparked two rounds follow-up RC



➢ Disappointing Phase 2 & 3 drilling


➢ Down dip positions returned narrow
low-grade intercepts


➢ Assumed RCLR0161 hit an oblique
high-grade zone


➢ Continued exploration success in
Cote d’Ivoire … intercept parked





8

The model v1




























































9

Geometry reveal




➢ RCLR0161 intercept not revisited until 2016

➢ 14m @ 2.93g/t Au in altered gneiss + disseminated sulphide


➢ Reinterpretation of sections & long-projection for steep dip


➢ Infill drilling 18m @ 2.19g/t Au 50m north - model confirmed

➢ Precollars prepared for DDH ‘tails’ & DHEM














42m @
7.75g/t Au




14m @ 2.93g/t Au 18m @ 2.19g/t Au

14m @ 0.98g/t Au

14m @ 2.93g/t Au

14m @ 0.98g/t Au


100m



10

The Don’t Argue




➢ 2017 Jennifer structure discovery confirmed


➢ Alt. gneiss with strong disseminated po cpy py

➢ West-dipping fabrics, local ‘m’ folds down core


➢ Full exploration focus on Rebecca Project




200m






42m @ 7.75


18m @ 2.19

5m @ 4.50g/t Au
17.8m @ 15.95g/t Au




49m @ 4.57g/t Au

49m @ 4.57g/t Au 28m @ 2.41g/t Au











11

The model v2




























































12

Rebecca early drill history







Pre 2012
2017
2016
2013
2018
2012
JENNIFER













JENNIFER 1.5km





500m























13

The Challenger model




➢ As drilling progressed a curved structural surface
emerged, and we saw folding in mineralised core


➢ Plunge orientation unclear, but promise of cylindrical
folding = long lived shoots


➢ Could this be like the >1.2Moz HG Challenger Mine
(Gawler Craton SA )?


➢ Gneiss hosted, high-grade structures & anomalous
>0.1g/t Au halo


49m @ 4.57g/t Au Challenger pit
Challenger M1 shoot





>10g/m
>30g/m
>100g/m



















14

What evolved

➢ Jennifer ‘baseball mitt’
geometry, truncated?


➢ …but open to strike


➢ Highest grade segment
found first, followed by
large lower-grade system
LAURA hangingwall structures

➢ Modified drag-fold
arrangement


➢ Stacked surfaces in section










LAURA
Rebecca south


JENNIFER

MADDY
Footwall structures





500m





15

1km



16

Rebecca today




➢ 59,000m 339 RC holes, 7,300m DDH 42 tails


➢ 1.8km strike, structures to 30m true width


➢ Jennifer structure trophy hits:

❖ 49m @ 4.57g/t Au

❖ 42m @ 7.75g/t Au

❖ 50m @ 4.05g/t Au EOH

❖ 25.8m @ 6.71g/t Au

❖ 25m @ 7.88g/t Au

❖ 75m @ 4.64g/t Au
❖ 21m @ 5.56g/t Au

➢ Laura structure 28m @ 4.83g/t Au


➢ Maddy structure 29m @ 4.10g/t Au

➢ Rebecca north 10m @ 7.68g/t Au


➢ Rebecca south 18m @ 6.93g/t Au


➢ Jennifer footwall 7m @ 9.04g/t Au


➢ Gradational to widespread >0.5g/t Au
mineralisation and surrounding anomalism


17

Rebecca MRE






Transported
cover &
depleted
profile

Jennifer








Exploration
beyond pit
shell






JORC-COMPLIANT MINERAL RESOURCE 1

Indicated Inferred Indicated & Inferred
Deposit Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces
Rebecca 13,600,000 1.5 640,000 6,800,000 0.9 200,000 20,400,000 1.3 840,000
Duchess 4,150,000 0.9 125,000 2,700,000 0.8 75,000 6,850,000 0.9 195,000
Duke 1,450,000 1.1 55,000 400,000 1.1 15,000 1,900,000 1.1 65,000
Total 19,200,000 1.3 815,000 9,900,000 0.9 290,000
Total Indicated & Inferred Mineral Resource 29,100,000 1.2 1,105,000

TABLE 1. Lake Rebecca Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate April 2021. Notes: The Mineral Resources are reported at a lower cut‐off grade of 0.5 g/t Au and are constrained within
A$2,250/oz optimised pit shells based on mining parameters and operating costs typical for Australian open pit extraction of deposits of similar scale and geology. All numbers are rounded
to reflect appropriate levels of confidence. Apparent differences may occur due to rounding.


18

Rebecca regolith





➢ Flat surface - aeolian

sand and/or 10-30m transported clays,
sheetwash clays Sandy soil profile, ferruginous gravels,
deepest over Maddy
flat terrain mineralised structure 40-50m combined
transported +
➢ Depleted upper saprolite profile
saprolite BOTC
TOFR
➢ Partially eroded by
Minor supergene Au in
shallow NE lower saprolite
paleochannel


➢ Patchy supergene Au
in lower-saprolite, Mineralisation in fresh rock

sub-horizontal

➢ 92% of combined

Mineral Resource
reports to fresh rock







Rebecca Deposit
Looking west






19

Rebecca geological features





➢ Frustratingly few useful
Late unmineralised
geological markers in sea mafic-ultramafic NE
of granodiorite/gneiss dyke, magnetite


➢ General association with
higher strain zones, see

less strain in HW and FW
rocks


➢ Site geologists guided by Fine grained
disseminated sulphide amphibolite dykes

content
Western margin
➢ Footwall intrusion – footwall intrusive

coarser grained +/-
Laura
amphibole Jennifer


➢ Amphibolite dykes

➢ Pegmatite/leucosome

layers
Rebecca Deposit
➢ Late dykes
Looking southwest






20

Jennifer structure





Looking down




Jennifer






Maddy


Mineralisation
Mineralisation at FW surface within FW intrusive
























Jennifer


Looking north




21

Structural studies




Independent structural studies Jennifer:


➢ Early granulite facies shear modified by later amphibolite facies shear event + Au

➢ ‘S’ – shaped drag fold with best grades in hinge, ? buttressed against FW intrusion


➢ Local ‘M’ folds in hinge zone, & higher strain and asymmetric ‘S’ folds in limbs


➢ Two plunge orientations in ‘M’ folding hinge zone

➢ Laura & Maddy structures in higher strain gneissic zones, gradational to

granodiorite/diorite

➢ Boudinage features?


















‘M’ folded layering of po-cpy dissem sulphides (white lines) &
local shared limbs (yellow lines) RCDLR0263 191m 6.18 g/t


Partial melting & differentiation
consistent with gneiss


22

Rebecca host rocks




➢ Granodiorite gneiss +/- narrow fine-grained amphibolite dykes, pegmatite, aplite, leucosome


amphibolite
RCDLR0223 mineralised



8.9g/t Au
amphibolite


34.7g/t Au

folding


3.4g/t Au

‘m’ folding


3.4g/t Au





14.0g/t Au



pegmatite
RCDLR0223 unmineralised


pegmatite







23

Project-wide mineralisation style



➢ Mineralised structures to 30m true width, flanked by gradational 0.20-0.50g/t gold

anomalism as defined by disseminated pyrrhotite


➢ Typically, Au assoc. with weak-moderately silicified altered gneiss, occasional silica-
sulph veinlets, biotite and minor amphibole, chlorite


➢ Gold reports to zones of 1-10% disseminated pyrrhotite +/- chalcopyrite, pyrite

➢ Higher grades associated with free Au, coarser grained Po, Cpy, Py


➢ No exotic pathfinders – Au, Cu +/- Ag



silica alteration






RCDLR0184 199-200m 2.79 g/t
Au


Po Cpy
Po






Py




Visible Au RCDLR0186 187-188m 26.32 g/t

24

Metallurgy






Rebecca test work:


➢ Not refractory, Au associated
with pyrrhotite and in coarse
native form


➢ Aberfoyle 1997: 94%


➢ Apollo 2018: average 94%

➢ Apollo 2019: average 93%


➢ Oxygen sparge steepens
recovery curves


➢ Detailed work in progress to
determine:


1. Gravity recovery

2. Comminution/grind size


3. Optimise oxygen levels, leach
time, lime & cyanide

requirements





25

Rebecca structure & magnetics





➢ Late dyke = magnetic


➢ Importance of NE Late unmineralised Fine grained
mafic-ultramafic NE
structural corridor? dyke, magnetite amphibolite dykes


➢ Rebecca mineralised
zone sits in arc

parallel to magnetic
mafic/ultramafic
intrusion


➢ Detailed mag
interpretation Laura

complicated by
paleochannel gravels
Jennifer

➢ Other local
aeromagnetic

responses =
amphibolite horizons


Rebecca Deposit
Mafic/ultramafic
intrusive Looking southwest





26

Project geology





➢ Preserved amphibolite-granulite
Cleo
facies greenstones on east side of Rebecca
Pinjin Fault


➢ Rebecca deposit sits within broad
granodiorite/gneiss pile


➢ Stratabound relative to magnetic
mafic/ultramafic intrusion, Duke
similar distance


➢ Rebecca & Duke potentially on east
limb of overturned and refolded fold

(synform?)

Duchess
➢ Basalt/amphibolite and diorite to
west (dome?)

➢ Duchess mineralised structures Duke

transect geology - in granodiorite
gneiss & fine-grained biotite rich

diorite

➢ Cleo – micro-diorite/mafic





27

Duchess





➢ 40m x 40m RC drill-out has defined multiple planar west-dipping
structures in widespread anomalism. Vertical plunge?


➢ Similar mineralisation style but with additional low-tenor sulphides

➢ Host rocks either granodiorite gneiss or fine-grained diorite (biotite-

quartz-feldspar)






















Duchess deposit oblique
view looking Nth








1km





28

Duchess MRE






➢ Geometry provides low-strip volume

➢ Valuable contributor to mine plan, offers scheduling options


➢ Structures open to base of pit shells






















JORC-COMPLIANT MINERAL RESOURCE 1

Indicated Inferred Indicated & Inferred
Deposit Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces
Rebecca 13,600,000 1.5 640,000 6,800,000 0.9 200,000 20,400,000 1.3 840,000
Duchess 4,150,000 0.9 125,000 2,700,000 0.8 75,000 6,850,000 0.9 195,000
Duke 1,450,000 1.1 55,000 400,000 1.1 15,000 1,900,000 1.1 65,000
Total 19,200,000 1.3 815,000 9,900,000 0.9 290,000
Total Indicated & Inferred Mineral Resource 29,100,000 1.2 1,105,000

TABLE 1. Lake Rebecca Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate April 2021. Notes: The Mineral Resources are reported at a lower cut‐off grade of 0.5 g/t Au and are constrained within
A$2,250/oz optimised pit shells based on mining parameters and operating costs typical for Australian open pit extraction of deposits of similar scale and geology. All numbers are rounded
to reflect appropriate levels of confidence. Apparent differences may occur due to rounding.

29

Duke MRE





➢ Performed as expected - robust vertical zone ~15m true width

➢ Structure open to base of pit shell



























JORC-COMPLIANT MINERAL RESOURCE 1

Indicated Inferred Indicated & Inferred
Deposit Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces Tonnes Grade g/t Ounces
Rebecca 13,600,000 1.5 640,000 6,800,000 0.9 200,000 20,400,000 1.3 840,000
Duchess 4,150,000 0.9 125,000 2,700,000 0.8 75,000 6,850,000 0.9 195,000
Duke 1,450,000 1.1 55,000 400,000 1.1 15,000 1,900,000 1.1 65,000
Total 19,200,000 1.3 815,000 9,900,000 0.9 290,000
Total Indicated & Inferred Mineral Resource 29,100,000 1.2 1,105,000

TABLE 1. Lake Rebecca Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate April 2021. Notes: The Mineral Resources are reported at a lower cut‐off grade of 0.5 g/t Au and are constrained within
A$2,250/oz optimised pit shells based on mining parameters and operating costs typical for Australian open pit extraction of deposits of similar scale and geology. All numbers are rounded
to reflect appropriate levels of confidence. Apparent differences may occur due to rounding.

30

Toolkit





✓ Aeromagnetic imagery – ground and airborne


✓ GA IP – with caveats Low tenor Low tenor
dissem dissem
✓ RC drilling – PCD bits sulphides sulphides





? Surface geochemistry

? Multi-element

geochemistry
Duchess
? DHEM - yes but no


? Dipole-dipole IP


? Gravity
Low tenor
regolith
dissem
sulphides
× RAB/Aircore drilling – depleted weathered zone

× Magnetic susceptibility – chatter throughout Duke


× Surface EM – salinity, scale

Duke & Duchess
× SAM – post mineralisation features? Gradient array IP
Chargeability




31

The wrap-up





➢ Rebecca Project offers excellent potential for a stand-alone 10yr


~100,000ozpa greenfield mine, rare in Eastern Goldfields


➢ Pushing deep into technical studies – engineering, met, environmental,


permitting ahead of feasibility work


➢ Exploration will continue to build on a pit-constrained 1.1Moz MRE


➢ Hidden in mature exploration terrain, despite sending strong signals


➢ Atypical rocks but in compelling structural setting


➢ Discovery indebted to past explorers and accessibility of old data


➢ …gold price + advances in RC drilling since mid-1990’s


➢ Product of timing, persistence and empirical work – well trodden path


➢ Archaean gneiss terrains can deliver: Big Bell, Westonia, Tropicana –


but often under cover and under-done


➢ Exploration implications for nearby and elsewhere



32

How close were the last guys?










RCLR0158
RCLR0139
RCLR0157


RCLR0161







RCDLR0184












17 years later



















33

Shout out




























































34

THANK YOU






ABN 13 102 084 917






































ASX: AOP

www.apolloconsolidated.com.au



Contact
Tel (08) 6319 1900
E [email protected]
1202 Hay Street West Perth 6005

Black Pine, Idaho, USA
























A Multimillion Ounce, Carlin-Style, Oxide Gold


Deposit Hiding in Plain Sight











Moira Smith & William Lepore









September 2021 TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Cautionary Notes & Technical Disclosures





All statements in this presentation, other than statements of historical fact, are "forward-looking information" with respect to Liberty Gold within the meaning of Unless stated otherwise, information of a scientific or technical nature in this presentation regarding the TV Tower, Kinsley Mountain, Goldstrike and Blackpine properties
applicable securities laws, including statements that address resource potential quantity and/or grade of minerals, potential size of a mineralized zone, potential expansion are summarized, derived or extracted from, the following technical reports:
of mineralization, the timing of and results of future resource estimates and PEAs, expected capital costs, expected gold recoveries the potential upgrade of inferred • “Updated Technical Report and Resource Estimate, TV Tower Exploration Property, Canakkale, Western Turkey", effective February 9, 2021, and dated May 18,
mineral resources to measured and indicated mineral resources, timing of exploration and development plans and timing of obtaining permits or completing earn-in 2021, co-authored by Mehmet Ali Akbaba, P.Geo., Mustafa Atalay, MSc, P. Geo., Fatih Uysal, MSc, P. Geo. Of DAMA Mϋhendislik A.Ş.; James N.Gray, P. Geo. of
obligations at the Company’s mineral projects. Forward-looking information is often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek", "anticipate", "plan", Advantage Geoservices Ltd., and Gary Simmons, BSc, Metallurgical Engineering, of GL Simmons Consulting LLC.;
"continue", "planned", "expect", "project", "predict", "potential", "targeting", "intends", "believe", "potential", and similar expressions, or describes a "goal", or variation of
such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "should", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. Forward-looking • “Updated Technical Report and Estimated Mineral Resources for the Kinsley Project, Elko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, U.S.A.” effective October 15, 2015, and
information is not a guarantee of future performance and is based upon a number of estimates and assumptions of management at the date the statements are made dated December 16, 2015, prepared by Michael Gustin, CPG, Moira Smith, Ph.D., P.Geo. And Gary L. Simmons, MMSA QP; and
including, among others, statements that address future mineral production, reserve potential, potential size and/or grade of a mineralized zone, potential expansion of • “Independent Technical Report and Resource Estimate for the Goldstrike Project, Washington County, Utah USA” effective February 8, 2018, and dated March 21,
mineralization, potential type(s) of mining operation; proposed timing of exploration and development plans at the Company’s mineral projects; timing and likelihood of 2018, prepared by David Rowe, C.P.G with SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.; James N. Gray, P. Geo. of Advantage Geoservices Ltd.; and Gary Simmons, MMSA, of GL
deployment of additional drill rigs; successful delivery of results of metallurgical testing; the timing of a release on an initial or updated mineral resource report on any of Simmons Consulting LLC; and
our properties, the timing of a PEA; the closing of any pending transactions, the receipt of the staged payments, the approval of any pending transactions by the
appropriate governing bodies, assumptions about future prices of gold, copper, silver, and other metal prices, currency exchange rates and interest rates, metallurgical • “Preliminary Economic Assessment and Independent Technical Report for the Goldstrike Project, Washington County, Utah USA”, effective February 8, 2018, and
recoveries, favourable operating conditions, political stability, obtaining governmental approvals and financing on time, obtaining renewals for existing licences and signed July 16, 2018, prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., of Vancouver, British Columbia (“SRK”), Golder Associates Inc. of Reno, Nevada (“Golder”), Kappes
permits and obtaining required licences and permits, labour stability, stability in market conditions, the impact from the pandemic of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), Cassiday and Associates of Reno, Nevada (“Kappes”), Advantage Geoservices of Osoyoos, British Columbia and GL Simmons Consulting LLC of Larkspur, Colorado;
availability of equipment, accuracy of any mineral resources, accuracy of any preliminary economic assessment, successful resolution of disputes and anticipated costs and and
expenditures. Many assumptions are based on factors and events that are not within the control of Liberty Gold and there is no assurance they will prove to be correct. • “Updated Technical Report and Resource Estimate for the Black Pine Gold Project, Cassia County, Idaho, USA” effective June 20, 2021 and dated August 18, 2021,
Such forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks, which may cause the actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or prepared by Michael M. Gustin, PhD., P.Geo., of MDA, a division of RESPEC of Reno, Nevada and Gary Simmons, MMSA, of GL Simmons Consulting LLC.
implied by such forward-looking information, including, but not limited to, reliance of technical information provided by our joint venture partners or other third parties, Each technical report has been filed under the Company’s issuer profile on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on Liberty Gold’s website at www.Libertygold.ca
changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; inability to upgrade inferred mineral resources to indicated or measured mineral resources or subsequently
reserves; possible variations in grade or recovery rates; amount or timing of proposed production figures; current and proposed exploration and development; the costs Baxter Springs is an early-stage exploration projects and do not contain any mineral resource estimates as defined by NI 43-101. The potential quantities and grades
and timing of exploration and development of new deposits; failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; the failure of contracted parties to perform; uses disclosed herein are conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource for the targets disclosed herein. It is uncertain if further
of funds in general including future capital expenditures, exploration expenditures and other expenses for specific operations; estimated future working capital including exploration will result in these targets being delineated as a mineral resource.
the receipt of staged payments, the cost, timing and success of exploration activities generally, including the development of new deposits, the timing of the publication of
any PEAs, the timing, timeline and possible outcome of permitting or license renewal applications; the closing of the transaction for the sale of Liberty’s interest in Kinsley Moira Smith, Ph.D., P.Geo, Vice President, Exploration and Geoscience, Liberty Gold, and Qualified Person under NI 43-101, has, to the extent possible, verified that the
to New Placer Dome Corp; the accuracy of a resource estimate prepared by New Placer Dome Corp.; the ability to maintain or convert the underlying licenses that historic data herein, including the results of drilling, sampling, and assaying by previous operators, is reliable.
comprise TV Tower in accordance with the requirements of the Turkish Mining Law, government regulation of exploration and mining operations, environmental risks,
including satisfaction of requirements relating to the periodic submissions of Environmental Impact Assessments, the uncertainty of negotiating with foreign governments, Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources
expropriation or nationalization of property without fair compensation, adverse determination or rulings by governmental authorities delays in obtaining governmental The terms “mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineral resource”, are Canadian mining terms as defined in, and
approvals, government regulation of exploration and mining operations, and the application thereof in accordance with the rule of law, possible claims against the required to be disclosed in accordance with, National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”), which references the guidelines set
Company or its joint venture partners, the impact of archaeological, cultural or environmental studies within property areas, title disputes or claims, limitations on out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the “CIM”) – CIM Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (“CIM Definition
insurance coverage, the interpretation and actual results of historical production at certain of our exploration properties, changes in project parameters as plans continue Standards”), adopted by the CIM Council, as amended. However, these terms are not defined terms under SEC Industry Guide 7 (“SEC Industry Guide 7”) under the United
to be refined; current economic conditions; future prices of commodities; possible variations in grade or recovery rates; failure of equipment or processes to operate as States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and normally are not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with United States Securities and
anticipated; the failure of contracted parties to perform; labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; including impacts from the pandemic of the novel Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The SEC has adopted amendments to its disclosure rules to modernize the mineral property disclosure requirements for issuers whose
coronavirus (COVID-19); delays in obtaining governmental approvals, financing or in the completion of exploration as well as those factors discussed in the Company’s securities are registered with the SEC under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These amendments became effective February 25, 2019 (the
Annual Information Form ("AIF") for the year ended December 31, 2020, dated March 26, 2021 under Liberty Gold’s SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com. “SEC Modernization Rules”) with compliance required for the first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021. The SEC Modernization Rules replace the historical
Non-GAAP Measures and Other Financial Measures disclosure requirements for mining registrants that were included in SEC Industry Guide 7. The Company does not file reports with the SEC and is not required to provide
disclosure on its mineral properties under the SEC Modernization Rules and will continue to provide disclosure under NI 43-101 and the CIM Definition Standards.
Alternative performance measures are furnished to provide additional information. These non-GAAP performance measures are included in this news release because
these statistics are key performance measures that management uses to monitor performance, to assess how the Company is performing, to plan and to assess the overall United States investors are cautioned that there are differences in the definitions under the SEC Modernization Rules and the CIM Definition Standards. There is no
effectiveness and efficiency of mining operations. These performance measures do not have a standard meaning within International Financial Reporting Standards assurance any mineral resources that the Company may report as “measured mineral resources”, “indicated mineral resources” and “inferred mineral resources” under NI
(“IFRS”) and, therefore, amounts presented may not be comparable to similar data presented by other mining companies. These performance measures should not be 43- 101 would be the same had the Company prepared the resource estimates under the standards adopted under the SEC Modernization Rules. United States investors
considered in isolation as a substitute for measures of performance in accordance with IFRS. are also cautioned that while the SEC will now recognize “measured mineral resources”, “indicated mineral resources” and “inferred mineral resources”, investors should
not assume that any part or all of the mineralization in these categories will ever be converted into a higher category of mineral resources or into mineral reserves.
Although Liberty Gold has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward- Mineralization described using these terms has a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and feasibility than mineralization that has been characterized as
looking information, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such reserves. Accordingly, investors are cautioned not to assume that any “measured mineral resources”, “indicated mineral resources” or “inferred mineral resources” that the
information will prove to be accurate as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Liberty Gold disclaims any Company reports are or will be economically or legally mineable. Further, “inferred mineral resources” have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to
intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Accordingly, readers whether they can be mined legally or economically. Therefore, United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of the “inferred mineral
should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. resources” exist. In accordance with Canadian securities laws, estimates of “inferred mineral resources” cannot form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies,
Moira Smith, Ph.D., P.Geo, Vice President, Exploration and Geoscience, Liberty Gold, and Qualified Person under National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101"), has reviewed except in limited circumstances where permitted under NI 43-101. In addition, the SEC has amended its definitions of “proven mineral reserves” and “probable mineral
and approved the contents of this presentation. reserves” to be “substantially similar” to the corresponding CIM definitions. United States investors are cautioned that a preliminary economic assessment cannot support
an estimate of either “proven mineral reserves” or “probable mineral reserves” and that no feasibility studies have been completed on the Company’s mineral properties.
Accordingly, information contained herein describing the Company’s mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject
to the reporting and disclosure requirements under the United States federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
2 TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Teamwork Makes the Dream Work!









Technical Team



Moira Smith – VP Exploration & Geoscience
Former Chief Geologist, Nevada for Fronteer Gold; Former US April Barrios – Senior Geologist
Exploration Manager for Teck

Jason Babcock – Senior Geologist
Jon Gilligan – Chief Operating Officer
Former VP for Torex Gold; Former VP Technical Services,
Exploration and Projects Development for SSR Mining Gerald Heston – Environmental and Permitting Manager


Peter Shabestari – VP Operations, Great Basin Manager Andrew Zehr – Database Geologist

Former Senior Geologist for Fronteer Gold; Former Project Geologist
for BHP, Kinross and AngloGold Bruce Condie – Geologist


Will Lepore – Principal Geologist, Exploration & Content Myles Schubert - Geologist

Creation Former Project Geologist for Fronteer Gold & Aurora
Energy Tracy Dembrowski – Geologist


Randy Hannink – On-Site Project Manager Jamie Anzora – Geologist
Former Project Geologist, Fronteer Gold



3 TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Black Pine Introduction









THE ASSET
• Past-producing bulk-tonnage, run of mine heap

leach mine

• “Off-trend” Carlin-style oxidized gold mineralization
• Mine produced 435,000 ounces of gold from 8

small, shallow, widely-scattered pits.

• Huge legacy data set with over 1800 shallow drill
holes, 10s of thousands of surface samples, etc.




WHY WE LIKED IT
• Lots of gold remaining in the ground based on

historic drilling

• Simple metallurgy

• Economic even during a period of very low gold
prices

• Evidence for the presence of a very large gold

system - huge soil anomaly covering multiple square
kilometres
4
• Data-rich environment

• Great jurisdiction

Sedimentary Rock-Hosted Oxide
Gold Deposits in the Western Black Pine

United States






GREAT BASIN PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE

Home of “Carlin-Type” sedimentary rock-hosted gold deposits
Over 140 million ounces of past production, resources and reserves in NE
Nevada



Carlin-Type deposits characterized by:

• Located along the Early Paleozoic rifted continental margin in Ordovician
and Devonian slope facies calcareous siltstones, debris flows, etc.
• Large deposits concentrated in “trends” (Carlin, Cortez)

• Gold hosted in the lattice of arsenical pyrite rims on pyrite grains
• Alteration types include silicification/jasperoid, clay (illite), decalcification

• Geochemical association with As, Sb, Tl and Hg (Ag, Zn, Cu, etc.)
• Temporally associated with Eocene and younger slab-rollback



Lots of similar looking deposits on the Paleozoic Shelf/Platform
• Hosted in platformal and basinal carbonates and foreland basin strata

ranging from Cambrian to Permian
• Similar alteration and geochemical fingerprint

• “Carlin-Style” deposits




5 TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Great Basin Heap Leach Comparables






Average ROM Resource / Reserves Grade (excluding Long Canyon): ~0.50 g/t Au
Average Au Recovery: ~70%



Reserve/Resource Cut-off grade
Company Asset Location Stage Process Au Recovery (%)
grade (g/t Au) (g/t Au)
SSR Mining Marigold Nevada Operating ROM 0.49 1 70 1 0.065 1

Nevada Gold Mines Long Canyon Nevada Operating ROM 2.21 2 80 2 0.24 2

Kinross Round Mountain Nevada Operating ROM 0.42 3A 61 3B 0.16 3C

Kinross Bald Mountain Nevada Operating ROM 0.60 4A 60 4B 0.14 4C

Fiore Pan Nevada Operating ROM/Crush 0.42 5 60-80 5 0.09 5

Equinox Mesquite California Operating ROM 0.54 6A 75 6B 0.125 6B

Equinox Castle Mountain California Operating ROM 0.51 6A 72.4 6C 0.17 6C
Liberty Gold Goldstrike Utah PEA ROM 0.50 7A ~78 7B 0.20 7A


Liberty Gold Black Pine Idaho Resource ROM/Crush 0.51 8A ~70-80 8B 0.20 8A

1 SSR 2020 AIF March 2021 Technical Report
2 Barrick 2020 AIF 7A 2018 M&I Grade (Liberty Gold Press Release, 2018);
• Open-pit, run-of-mine heap-leach operations are some of 3A Kinross 2020 Annual Report, Heap Leach, 2020 head 7B Variable by grade; estimated from column tests and
3B
the lowest cost gold producers in the world grade; Kinross 2020 AIF Average recovery (range 46% projected to ROM
8A
Liberty Gold Press Release, July 13, 2021, M&I grade
3C
to 76%) Kinross 2020 AIF Mineral Reserves cut-off
4A Kinross 2020 Reserve Statement Kinross 2020 AIF 8B Weighted average from column tests; projected to
4B
• Can operate down to very low average grades and cut- average recovery (range: 36% to 83%) Kinross 2020 ROM material size up to 80% recoveries; Liberty Gold
4C
AIF
Press Release
offs 5 Fiore August 2021 corporate presentation
6A Equinox 2020 Reserve Statement; Mesquite May
6B
2020 Technical Report (oxide-ores) 6C Castle Mountain
6 TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Black Pine Location &


Overview









• Located in mining-friendly Idaho


• Large property (47.8 km )
2

• Excellent project access


• Power to the property boundary


• No timber values


• No water in the mineralized area


• No fish-bearing streams


• Groundwater in the basin

• Previously mined and reclaimed














TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Black Pine


Geology







• Three structural plates:

• Lower Plate: Dev-Miss platform

and foreland basin strata
• Middle Plate: Penn. Oquirrh Fm.

Limestone, dolomite, calcareous Upper

siltstone and sandstone Plate
• Upper Plate: Perm. Oquirrh Fm.

Sandstone and siltstone

• East-vergent thrust imbrication in the Lower
late Cretaceous Sevier Orogeny. Plate

• Episodic, top-to-the-east, low-angle

listric normal faulting Eocene –
Miocene. Middle
Plate
• Reactivates old thrust faults
• High-angle normal faulting Pliocene -

Recent







TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Black Pine


Geology





Upper
• Three structural plates: Plate

• Lower Plate: Dev-Miss platform

and foreland basin strata
• Middle Plate: Penn. Oquirrh Fm.

Limestone, dolomite, calcareous Lower

siltstone and sandstone Plate Middle
• Upper Plate: Perm. Oquirrh Fm. Plate

Sandstone and siltstone

• East-vergent thrust imbrication in the
late Cretaceous Sevier Orogeny.

• Episodic, top-to-the-east, low-angle

listric normal faulting Eocene –
Miocene.

• Reactivates old thrust faults
• High-angle normal faulting Miocene -

Recent







TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Black Pine
Stratigraphy



























































TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Late Cretaceous Sevier Fold And Thrust Belt






The Architecture Upon Which The Gold System Was Superimposed


Here’s to finding the sweet spot.

Phase 1 thrust faults and recumbent folds Phase 2 thrust faults and open, upright folds










































TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF

Cenozoic Extension





Polb
• Eocene onset of extension in the Great B A

Here’s to finding the sweet spot.
Basin

• Early extension at Black Pine relatively low
angle and ductile, likely reactivates thrust Polc Polb

faults


• Gold spatially associated with listric faults,
~37-40 Ma? Polc


• Albion – Raft River core complex extension C B

post-dates mineralization (Miocene)
A B
B
• Latest faulting Pliocene to Recent and
associated with “Basin and Range” extension

















TSX:LGD | OTCQX:LGDTF