Date post: | 10-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Investor Relations |
Upload: | rubicon-minerals-corporation |
View: | 1,485 times |
Download: | 3 times |
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Corporate Presentation June 2015
Rubicon’s first gold bar #00001
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Forward Looking Statements & Cautionary Notes
Cautionary Statement regarding Forward-Looking Statements and other Cautionary Notes
Forward-Looking Statements
This presentation contains statements that constitute “forward-looking statements” and “forward looking information” (collectively, “forward-looking statements”)
within the meaning of applicable Canadian and United States securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to statements regarding the
start of projected initial production at the Phoenix Gold Project occurring in mid-2015, the anticipated timeline of the underground development of the Phoenix Gold
Project, the schedule of the mill commissioning process at the Phoenix Gold Project, the anticipated use of the proceeds of the loan facility and the anticipated
electricity cost savings the Company will realize in connection with the electricity cost savings program.
Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and represent management’s best
judgment based on facts and assumptions that management considers reasonable. The material assumptions upon which such forward-looking statements are based
include, among others, that: the demand for gold and base metal deposits will develop as anticipated; the price of gold will remain at levels that will render the
Phoenix Gold Project economic; operating and capital plans will not be disrupted by operational issues, power supply, labour disturbances, or adverse weather
conditions; Rubicon will meet its estimated timeline for the development of the Phoenix Gold Project; Rubicon will continue to have the ability to attract and retain
skilled staff; the mineral resource estimate as disclosed in the Preliminary Economic Assessment with an effective date of June 25, 2013 and with an issue date of
February 28, 2014 (the “PEA”) will be realized; and there are no material unanticipated variations in the cost of energy or supplies, or in the pre-production capital and
operating cost estimate as disclosed in the PEA.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of
Rubicon to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such factors include,
among others: possible variations in mineralization, grade or recovery rates; actual results of current exploration activities; actual results of reclamation activities;
conclusions of future economic evaluations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; failure of equipment or processes to operate as anticipated;
accidents and other risks of the mining industry; delays and other risks related to construction activities and operations; timing and receipt of regulatory approvals of
operations; the ability of Rubicon and other relevant parties to satisfy regulatory requirements; the availability of financing for proposed transactions, programs and
working capital requirements on reasonable terms; the ability of third-party service providers to deliver services on reasonable terms and in a timely manner; market
conditions and general business, economic, competitive, political and social conditions.
The PEA is preliminary in nature as it includes inferred mineral resources that 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. Mineral resources that are not mineral
reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title,
taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources referred to in the PEA are uncertain in nature and
there has been insufficient exploration to define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral resource category.
It is important to note that the information provided in this presentation is preliminary in nature. There is no certainty that a potential mine will be realized. A mine
production decision that is not based on a feasibility study demonstrating economic and technical viability does not provide adequate disclosure of the increased
uncertainty and specific risks of failure associated with such a production decision.
Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this presentation and Rubicon disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities laws. There can be no assurance
that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements.
Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. 2
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Cautionary Note to U.S. Readers Regarding Estimates of Indicated and Inferred Resources
This presentation uses the terms “measured” and “indicated” mineral resources and “inferred” mineral resources. The Company advises U.S. investors that while these
terms are recognized and required by Canadian securities administrators, they are not recognized by the SEC. The estimation of “measured” and “inferred” mineral
resources involves greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic feasibility than the estimation of proven and probable reserves. The estimation of “inferred”
resources involves far greater uncertainty as to their existence and economic viability than the estimation of other categories of resources. It cannot be assumed that
all or any part of a “measured”, “inferred” or “indicated” 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 studies, pre-feasibility studies or other economic studies, except
in prescribed cases, such as in a preliminary economic assessment under certain circumstances. The SEC normally only permits issuers to report mineralization that
does not constitute “reserves” as in-place tonnage and grade without reference to unit measures. Under U.S. standards, 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. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of a “measured”, “indicated” or “inferred” mineral resource exists or is
economically or legally mineable. Information concerning descriptions of mineralization and resources contained herein may not be comparable to information made
public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of the SEC.
Mineral Resources
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. The estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The quantity and grade of reported inferred resources in this
estimation are uncertain in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these inferred resources as an indicated or measured mineral resource and it is
uncertain if further exploration will result in upgrading them to an indicated or measured mineral resource category. The inclusion of inferred mineral resources are
considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. The mineral resources in
this press release were reported using CIM Standards.
Qualified Persons
The content of this corporate presentation has been read and approved by Michael Lalonde, P.Eng., President and CEO of Rubicon. He is a Qualified Persons as defined
by NI 43-101.
Forward Looking Statements & Cautionary Notes
3
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
The Rubicon Minerals Advantage
Low risk ‣ Significantly funded; substantial infrastructure built; fully permitted to 1,250 tpd;
‣ Safe jurisdiction; First nations exploration agreements signed.
High-grade gold project ‣ Positive and conservative PEA; 8.1 g/t Au to the mill;
‣ On schedule for projected initial production in mid-2015.
Experienced management team ‣ Proven production expertise in underground gold deposits;
‣ Over 100 years of operational experience.
4
Red Lake Ontario, Canada
Toronto
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Cochenour (G)
Red Lake Gold Mines (G)
Phoenix Gold Project
(RMX)
F2 Structures
Red Lake, ON
Red Lake: Prolific Gold Mining District More than 26 million Ounces of Gold Produced
N
Rubicon (RMX) claims, 100 sq. miles. ~40% of claims in Red Lake
Goldcorp (G) claims
Ultramafic units
F2 folds
Gold projects in development
Existing gold mines
High-priority RMX exploration targets
Slate Bay
(RMX)
DMC (RMX)
Adams Lake (RMX)
East Bay (RMX)
5
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Phoenix Gold Project Site Surface and Mill Construction Completed
6
• Mill construction completed
• Mill circuit commissioning continues to process
low-grade mineralized material
• Head frame and hoist commissioned
• Shaft completed to 730 m
• Camp completed to
300 person capacity
• Tailings management facility
completed to handle 2-years of
operations
• Surface roads, earth and civil works in place
• Power line and substation on site
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
SAG and ball mill Conveyor
CIL tanks Control room
Phoenix Gold Project Mill construction completed and commissioning
7
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
10-ton skip 1,250 hp Hoist Longhole drilling at
305-metre level
Phoenix Gold Project Underground ready for stoping
8
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Phoenix Gold Project Upper-level Underground Development
Surface
Return air
raises
Fresh air
raise
337-metre loading pocket
685-metre loading pocket
Crusher station
Ore & waste passes
Shaft
Planned lateral development
610-metre haulage level
305-metre haulage level
Diagram facing North (not to scale)
Conveyer system
Crusher station
9
8,023 m of initial
U/G development
above 305-metre
level completed
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Phoenix Gold Project Timeline
10
• Mill commissioning
commenced
• C$30 million flow-through
financing
(April 2015)
2015
Ramp-up period
Stockpiling
of mill feed
(December 2014)
First Gold Pour June 2015
U/G development
to projected initial
production
completed
(June 5, 2015)
Completed 38,000 m
infill drilling program
(January 2015)
• US$50 million
loan facility secured
• Processing low-grade
mineralized material
• Enrolled in IEI Program
(May 2015)
Projected initial
production
(forecast in July)
Q3 Operations update
(forecasted in October)
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
LOM projected gold production 2.19 million oz
Average annual projected gold production 165,300 oz
Diluted grade to the mill 8.1 g/t Au
Total dilution (internal and external) applied 44%
Cash operating cost US$599/oz (C$629/oz)
All-in sustaining cost2 US$870/oz (C$913/oz)
Average LOM daily throughput 1,900 tpd
Mining method 90% long-hole stoping
Production life 13.25 years
Gold recovery 92.5%
Shaft extension bottom 1,400-metre level
1 The PEA was prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. with metallurgical sections prepared by Soutex Inc., both of whom are independent of the Company as defined by NI 43-101, with
an effective date of June 24, 2013 and with an issue date of February 28, 2014. See FLS and Disclaimer section for important disclosure on the PEA. See also News Release dated June 25,
2013
2 All-in sustaining cash costs include operating costs, royalties, gold streaming, and sustaining capital and do not include any pre-production capital expenditures, allocation of estimated
corporate overhead costs or exploration costs.
Conservative, Positive PEA Highlights1
11
Conservative
compared to prior
mineral resource
estimates
Conservative
sustaining capex
estimate of
~US$185/oz
Manageable
throughput
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
TonnesRecovered Grade
(g/t Au)Recovered ounces
Red Lake Gold Mines (Goldcorp):
Campbell, Dickenson/High Grade Zone 12,989,559 23.5 9,833,638
Campbell (Placer Dome), 1949-2006 18,093,116 19.3 11,216,443
Madsen 7,872,681 9.7 2,452,388
Cochenour-Willans 2,096,654 18.5 1,244,279
McKenzie Red Lake 2,135,362 9.5 651,156
Howey 4,200,973 3.1 421,592
Hasaga 1,374,641 4.9 218,213
Starrat Olsen 823,554 6.2 163,990
Berens River 508,574 9.6 157,341
Uchi 686,806 5.2 114,467
Jason (Argosy) 250,903 12.6 101,875
H.G. Young 261,432 6.6 55,244
Sachigo River 42,145 38.8 52,560
McMarmac 138,779 10.1 45,246
Gold Eagle 163,379 7.7 40,204
Jackson Manion 95,578 8.8 27,142
Red Lake Gold Shore 78,320 8.4 21,100
Hudson Patricia 10,186 5.7 1,857
Buffalo 29,017 1.8 1,656
Abino 2,479 17.5 1,397
Lake Rowan 11,814 3.4 1,298
Kostynuk Brothers 523 66.9 1,126
Mount Jamie 882 13.3 377
Bathurst 510 18.7 307
Red Summit 536 16.1 277
Sol d'Or 415 19.3 258
Red Lake Camp total 51,868,822 16.1 26,825,431
Red Lake Camp total
(excluding Red Lake Gold Mines, Goldcorp)38,879,263 13.6 16,991,793
Phoenix Gold Project (RMX) 9,131,926 7.5 2,190,084
Conservatism Applied to the SRK Model
12
Source: Ministry of Northern
Development and Mines 1Projected recovered ounces
Phoenix Gold Project
recovered grade less
than half of the Red
Lake District camp
average
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
LOM Projected Production & Cost Profile1
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 $-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Projected production Cash operating cost/Recovered ounce
Po
ten
tial
An
nu
al
Pro
du
cti
on
(000)
Cash
Op
era
ting
Co
st P
er O
un
ce
(US
$)
13 1Based on PEA estimate.
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
‣ U/G: 2 ready for stoping; 5 stopes in various stages of development
‣ Rule of thumb: ~250 tpd per operating stope
~300 tpd from on-going stope development
‣ Commercial production: 70% of 1,250 tpd over 60 days
‣ Hoisting capacity1: 3,000 tonnes/12 hour shift
875 tpd for 60 days
1,250 tpd
Commercial production
Permitted capacity
Planned Path to Commercial Production …and beyond
14
300 tpd
250 tpd
250 tpd
250 tpd
250 tpd
Tonnes from stope
development
Tonnes from
operating stopes
1Hoisting from the 305-metre haulage level 305-m level
244-m level
183-m level
122-m level
Stopes under development
Planned lateral development
Underground Development Diagram (facing northeast)
(Diagram not to scale)
Planned first
two stopes
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Alimak Access Sublevel Longhole Stoping For the first two stopes
Source: SRK (New PEA 2013) 15
Alimak
access
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
With US$ currently trading at ~C$1.231…
More than 80% of Phoenix Project projected operating cost is denominated in
C$
Despite the ~US$200/oz decline in the gold price since the PEA, the C$ gold
price is up 7% since PEA
US$50 million debt
received from CPPIB
The Canadian Dollar Advantage
16
1CAD/USD exchange rate is based as of June 23, 2015, at C$1.2363/US$1; source: Kitco
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
P/NAV Multiple: RMX vs. Canadian Gold Producers Chasing the Canadian producer multiple
17
RMX trades at an average discount of 34% from the mean P/NAV
multiple of Canadian producers
P/NAV Multiple – RMX vs. Canadian Gold Producers
Source: BMO Capital Markets, TD Securities, National Bank Financial, Company estimates (as of June 12, 2015)
BMO rating on RMX: Outperform, $2.00 targetNBF Rating on RMX: Outperform, $1.90 target TD rating on RMX: Speculative Buy, $2.25 target
0.9x
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
RMX KGI RIC WDO AUQ DGC LSG
NBF
Mean: 0.9x
0.6x
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
RMX KGI DGC AUQ LSG
BMO
Mean: 1.8x
0.6x
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
RMX RIC DGC LSG AUQ
TD
Mean: 1.0x
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Exploration Potential: East Bay Deformation zone
18
N
Red Lake Gold Mines (G)
Cochenour (G)
GAZ Zone (G)
Footwall Zone (G)
CARZ/CARZ HW/Island Zone (RMX)
Phoenix Gold Project (RMX)
Abino (G)
McMarmac Mine
H.G. Young Mine (G)
McKenzie Mine
East Bay Deformation Zone (EBDZ)
East Bay claim (100% RMX)
Strong structural deformation trends
(containing ultramafic rocks)
Gold occurrences
Faulting structures
Several historical gold
occurrences in EBDZ
Ultramafic stratigraphy similar and
along strike to F2 deposit
Cross-cutting faulting structures
could explain gold mineralization
4.0 km
Chevron (G)
East Bay (RMX)
High-priority exploration targets
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Near-Term Exploration Potential: CARZ and CARZ Hanging Wall
19
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Nevada Claims: Emerging Long Canyon Gold District Opportunity
Rubicon controls 350
square miles of mineral
claims in northeastern
Nevada
Land package
sandwiched between
known, sediment-
hosted type of gold
mineralization: Long
Canyon (NEM) and
TUG deposit (WKM)
Rubicon currently
evaluating opportunities
to create value with
these claims
East Bay (RMX)
20
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Low Risk
High-grade gold project
Experienced management team
The Rubicon Minerals Advantage
21
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
22
Appendices
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Capital Structure
Shares outstanding 394 million
Restricted Shares1 2 million
Options 18 million
Warrants2 10 million
Fully diluted3 424 million
Share price (NYSE-MKT/TSX)4 US$1.08/C$1.31
Market capitalization4 C$516.1 million
30-day average daily trading volume4:
TSX 0.82 million
NYSE 0.55 million
Total 1.37 million 1Pending plan approval 2Warrants in consideration for the CPPIB Credit Investments Inc. Loan Facility 3Assuming in-the-money vesting of all options, warrants, and restricted shares 4Source: TSX InfoSuite as of June 23, 2015
23
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Positive Economics in Various Gold Prices
1Includes the impact of the gold streaming agreement. 2Based on January 1, 2015 estimates on a go-forward basis.
Current PEA NPV and IRR Sensitivity Analysis1,2
Gold Price (US$/oz)
Discount
Rate $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500
After-tax NPV
(C$millions)
3% $ 366.8 $ 507.1 $ 634.0 $ 759.7 $ 885.2
5% $ 297.5 $ 423.1 $ 537.0 $ 649.1 $ 760.9
7% $ 241.3 $ 354.3 $ 457.0 $ 557.8 $ 658.0
After-tax IRR 13.0% 19.1% 24.9% 30.7% 36.6%
24
…based on a PEA C$/US$ exchange rate of 1.05
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
38,000 m Infill Drilling Program Long section facing west
25
Goals: Upgrade mineral resource above the 610m-level to 25.0 m spacing (or less)
24-36 months of potential production to 12.5 m spacing (or less) following definition drilling
Long section facing west
Hanging wall intercepts
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
38,000 m Infill Drilling Program Cross section facing north
26
Results confirm the Company’s expectations on
continuity and grade
Economic intercepts appear in areas outside the
planned stoping blocks; potential to expand
resource in the upper levels
Hanging wall intercepts
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Source: SRK 1 CIM definitions were used for indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources 2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Reported at 4.0 g/t Au cut-off grade assuming an underground extraction scenario, a gold price of US$1,500 per ounce, and metallurgical recovery of 92.5% 3 Capping values of 200 g/t Au, 150g/t Au, and 30 g/t Au were applied to the composites from the Main and 45 Trend, HW, and External domains, respectively 4 Using drilling results to October 31, 2012 5 The PEA is preliminary in nature. Inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the inferred resources will be converted to the measured and indicated categories, that the indicated resources will be converted to the proven and probable mineral reserve categories and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues
Improved Mineral Resource Estimate1,2,3,4,5
Improved continuity of resource model
High conversion rate >85% from inferred ounces
7.8 m average horizontal thickness
Higher grades reported at depth
Remains open at depth and along strike
Indicated mineral
resources
Inferred mineral
resources
600 m
4.0 g/t Au cut off
Category Tonnes Grade
(g/t Au)
Ounces
(000)
Indicated 4,120 8.52 1,129
Inferred 7,452 9.26 2,219
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate @ 4.0 g/t Au Cut-off
27
305-metre level
Shaf
t
N
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Indicated Classification Inferred Classification5
Cut-off Grade
(g/t Au)
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Ounces Au (000)
Tonnes
(000s)
Grade
(g/t Au)
Contained
Ounces Au (000)
7.0 1,959 12.16 766 3,962 12.90 1,643
6.0 2,425 11.06 862 4,617 11.99 1,780
5.0 3,116 9.82 984 5,604 10.84 1,954
4.0 4,120 8.52 1,129 7,452 9.26 2,219
3.0 5,396 7.33 1,272 11,119 7.34 2,623
Updated Mineral Resource Estimate
Source: SRK 1 CIM definitions were used for indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources 2 Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Reported at cut-off grade sensitivities ranging from 3.0 g/t Au to 7.0 g/t Au assuming an underground extraction scenario, a gold price of US$1,500 per ounce, and metallurgical recovery of 92.5% 3 Capping values of 200 g/t Au, 150g/t Au, and 30 g/t Au were applied to the composites from the Main and 45 Trend, HW, and External domains, respectively 4 Using drilling results to October 31, 2012 5 The PEA is preliminary in nature. Inferred mineral resources are too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the inferred resources will be converted to the measured and indicated categories, that the indicated resources will be converted to the proven and probable mineral reserve categories and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability; the estimate of mineral resources may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues
The 2013 Global Quantities and Grade Estimates at Various Cut-off Grades1,2,3,4,5 Drilling Results to October 31, 2012
28
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Conservatism Applied to SRK Model Mineral Resource Estimate Comparisons
GEOEX - Amended
(2011)
AMC
(2011)
SRK
(2013)
Grade
(g/t Au) 17.3 (inferred) 14.5 (indicated)
17.0 (inferred)
8.5 (indicated)
9.3 (inferred)
Ounces 3.1 million (inferred) 0.5 million (indicated)
2.3 million (inferred)
1.1 million (indicated)
2.2 million (inferred)
Grade
interpolation polygonal inverse distance
cubed
ordinary kriging
Grade capping 10-5-2 oz 270 g/t Au 200 g/t Au (Main)
Cut-off grade
(g/t Au) 5.0 5.0 4.0
Metres drilled 166,886 259,000 355,611
Conceptual mining model
Grade to the mill
(g/t Au) n/a 13.9 8.1
Average stope width n/a 2.0 m 7.8 m
Overall dilution n/a 18% 44%
29
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Cash Operating and All-In-Sustaining Costs
Cost Per Tonne Cost Per
Ounce
Cash operating cost components:
In-stope mining cost C$27 C$113
Underground utilities and services C$19 C$76
Material handling C$9 C$37
Surface, general, and administrative C$30 C$128
Processing C$20 C$84
Vertical/lateral operating development C$20 C$83
Pre-production vertical/lateral development C$26 C$108
Total cash operating cost C$151 C$629
Royalty1 (1.5%) C$5 C$22
Gold stream1 (6.3%) C$16 C$68
Sustaining capital cost C$47 C$194
All-in sustaining cash cost2 C$219
US$209
C$913
US$870
30
1 Assumes PEA gold price assumption of $1,385/oz
2 FX conversion assumes PEA C$/$US exchange rate of 1.05/1.00
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Notes
31
RMX: TSX | RBY: NYSE MKT
Officers & Directors
Michael A. Lalonde, P.Eng.
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
David R. Beatty, C.M., O.B.E.
Chairman
Nick Nikolakakis, MBA
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Julian Kemp, BBA, CA, CPA, C.Dir.
Director
Bill Shand, P.Eng.
Vice President, Operations
Peter Rowlandson, P.Eng.
Director
Howard Bird, B.Sc., P.Geo.
Vice President, Exploration
Bruce A. Thomas, LL.B.
Director
Glenn Kumoi, LL.B.
Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary
Michael D. Winship, P.Eng.
Director
Allan Candelario, CFA
Vice President, Investor Relations
Allan Candelario, CFA
Vice President, Investor Relations
Phone: 1.866.365.4706
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.rubiconminerals.com
Head Office
Suite 400 – 44 Victoria St.
Toronto, ON Canada M5C 1Y2
Toll Free: 1.866.365.4706
32