Friday, October 16, 2026
MineTerminalPro TheDeepDive SEDITracker
MiningNewsTerminal
Friday, October 16, 2026 Admin

RVG.V ·

Revival Gold Delivers Compelling PEA Results and Attractive Potential Re-Development Timeline for the Mercur Gold Project

Resource Estimates Technical Reports (NI 43-101) Economic Studies

Toronto, ON – March 31st, 2025 – Revival Gold Inc. (TSXV: RVG, OTCQX: RVLGF) (“Revival Gold” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce compelling results from a Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) on the Company’s Mercur Gold Project (“Mercur” or the “Project”) in Utah, U.S.A. Furthermore, the Project’s favorable mineral tenure, straightforward design and existing infrastructure endowment are expected by Revival Gold and the Company’s consultants to support a relatively short permitting timeline of approximately two years, putting Mercur on the fast track for potential re-development.

Mercur Heap Leach PEA Highlights1

  • Life-of-mine (“LOM”) production of 65.6 million tonnes (“MT”) of mineralized material at 0.60 grams per tonne (“g/T”) and 75% average recovery generating an average of 95,600 ounces of gold per year over a 10-year mine life;
  • After-tax NPV at a 5% discount rate (“NPV5%”) of $294 million and after-tax IRR of 27% at a gold price of $2,175 per ounce increasing to a $752 million NPV5% and 57% IRR at a gold price of $3,000 per ounce;
  • After-tax payback period of 3.6 years at $2,175 per ounce of gold decreasing to 1.7 years at $3,000 per ounce of gold;
  • Pre-production and working capital of $208 million and additional LOM sustaining capital of $110 million;
  • LOM average cash cost of $1,205 per ounce of gold and all in sustaining cost of $1,363 per ounce of gold;
  • PEA mine plan developed from Indicated Mineral Resources of 35.3 MT grading 0.66 g/T gold containing 746,000 ounces of gold and Inferred Mineral Resources of 36.2 MT grading 0.54 g/T gold containing 626,000 ounces of gold2; and,
  • Expected timeline to complete applicable baseline studies and mine permitting of approximately two years.

1 The PEA economic analysis was developed using a gold price of $2,175 per ounce. See Table 6 for additional details. All amounts shown in this news release are in United States dollars and metric units of measurement unless otherwise stated.

2 Mineral Resources were estimated based on a gold price of $2,000 per ounce. See Table 1 for additional Mineral Resource modeling input parameters.

“Completion of this PEA highlights the potential economic value of Mercur and more than doubles Revival Gold’s underlying net asset value from gold”, said Hugh Agro, President & CEO. “Mercur presents a unique opportunity for relatively near-term U.S. gold production from a low-risk, low capital project at a logistically superior domestic mine site. The Project features robust economics including a $294 million after-tax NPV and a compelling 27% after-tax IRR at $2,175 gold increasing to $752 million and 57% at $3,000 gold. Over the course of the next two years, Revival Gold intends to focus on low-risk resource conversion and expansion, additional engineering studies and the completion of Project permitting”, added Agro.

“As a brownfield site, Mercur offers significant historical exploration and operational data, excellent logistics including paved access, water supply system, electrical power line and substation, and close proximity to a large, skilled workforce, with the added benefit of exemplary historical environmental performance that should translate into a shorter permitting schedule and lower technical and execution risk”, noted John Meyer, Vice President, Engineering & Development.

This PEA is preliminary in nature. In addition to Indicated Mineral Resources, it includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to apply economic considerations that would enable categorization as Mineral Reserves, and there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

The PEA was prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) guidelines by Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (“KCA”) of Reno, Nevada and RESPEC Company LLC (“RESPEC”) of Reno, Nevada (the “Study Authors”) with an effective date of March 25th, 2025. The Company will file a technical report summarizing the PEA on www.revivalgold.com and on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca in accordance with NI 43-101 within 45 days.

Conference Call

Management will host a conference call later today to discuss the results of the Mineral Resource update and PEA. Call-in information is as follows:

Scheduled Start: March 31st, 2025, 10:00 am EST Call-In Number: 289-514-5100 Toll Free in North America: 800-717-1738

A playback of the conference call will be available for one week at 289-819-1325 or toll free in North America at 888-660-6264. Playback passcode 20300#.

Further Details

Mineral Resource Estimate

The Mineral Resource estimate is reported in accordance with NI 43-101 and was prepared by RESPEC with an effective date of March 13th, 2025.

Table 1 summarizes the pit optimization input parameters used to develop the Mineral Resource estimate and Table 2 presents the Mineral Resources for the Main and South Mercur deposits, which were estimated at a gold price of $2,000 per ounce.

Table 1: Mineral Resource Estimate Pit Optimization Input Parameters

Mineral ResourceMainSouth
Units
Pit Optimization ParametersMercurMercur
General
Mineral Resource Gold Price$/oz Au$2,000
Mining/Heap Leaching Ratetonnes/day18,144
Average Leach Recovery%74%79%
Operating Expenditures
Mining – Rock$/tonne Mined$2.76
Mining – Fill$/tonne Mined$2.36N/A
Incremental Haul to Crusher$/tonne Processed$0.35$0.90
Heap Leaching$/tonne Processed$4.46
General & Administrative Costs$/tonne Processed$0.90
Other Costs
Refining & Freight$/oz Au Recovered$5.00
RoyaltiesNet Smelter Return2.1%1
Note: 1. Royalties for the property are variable and were calculated on a block-by-block basis. This value represents the block-weighted average net smelter return royalty for the Main and South Mercur PEA pits.

Table 2: Mineral Resource Estimate

Project AreaIndicated Mineral ResourcesInferred Mineral Resources
TonnageGold GradeGoldTonnageGold GradeGold
(kT)(g/T)(koz)(kT)(g/T)(koz)
Main Mercur28,6290.63581.033,1790.53567.0
South Mercur6,6700.77165.03,0660.6059.0
Total Mercur35,2990.66746.036,2460.54626.0
Notes: 1. The Mineral Resource estimates were developed by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial units, and the results and optimization parameters were converted into metric units. 2. In-situ Mineral Resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards. 3. Mineral Resources for all model blocks were calculated within optimized pits at a cut-off gold grade of 0.005 oz/ton (0.17 g/tonne). 4. The average gold grades of the Mineral Resources are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within the optimized pits. Alluvium and historical waste rock and backfill materials are not included in the Mineral Resources. 5. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 6. Mineral Resources potentially amenable to open pit mining methods are reported using a gold price of US$2,000/oz, a throughput rate of 20,000 tons/day (18,144 tonnes/day), variable metallurgical gold recoveries that average 74% for Main Mercur and 79% for South Mercur, variable net smelter return royalties with a block-weighted average of 2.1%, mining costs of US$2.50/ton (US$2.76/tonne) mined, heap leach processing costs of US$4.05/ton (US$4.46/tonne) processed, and general and administrative costs of US$0.82/ton (US$0.90/tonne) processed. The gold commodity price was selected based on an analysis of the three-year trailing average at the end of February 2025. 7. The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is March 13, 2025. 8. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

Table 3 illustrates the sensitivity of the Main and South Mercur Mineral Resources to changes in the gold price from $1,600 per ounce up to $2,400 per ounce. All sensitivity cases are tabulated at a cutoff gold grade of 0.005 oz/ton (0.17 g/tonne). All tabulations at gold prices lower than the base case of $2,000/oz represent subsets of the current Mineral Resources. All tabulations at gold prices higher than the base case reflect potential future increases in Mineral Resources and are provided for information only.

Table 3: Mineral Resources Sensitivity to Gold Price

Mineral Resource Category & Gold PriceResourceContainedContained
TonnageGold GradeGold
(kT)(g/T)(koz)
Mineral Resource Sensitivity at $1,600/oz Gold
Total Indicated28,6410.69636
Total Inferred27,6110.58514
Mineral Resource Sensitivity at $1,800/oz Gold
Total Indicated31,5600.67683
Total Inferred31,5070.55562
Base Case Mineral Resource $2,000/oz Gold
Total Indicated35,2990.66746
Total Inferred36,2460.54626
Mineral Resource Sensitivity at $2,200/oz Gold
Total Indicated37,0890.65779
Total Inferred39,0220.52654
Mineral Resource Sensitivity at $2,400/oz Gold
Total Indicated40,2380.64822
Total Inferred43,9010.53743
Notes: 1. The Mineral Resource estimates were developed by Michael S. Lindholm, CPG of RESPEC in Imperial units, and the results and optimization parameters were converted into metric units. 2. In-situ Mineral Resources are classified in accordance with CIM Standards. 3. The base case reported Mineral Resources at a gold price of $2,000/oz Au is shown in bold and has an effective date of March 13, 2025. 4. Tabulations at gold prices higher and lower than the base case are presented to demonstrate sensitivities to fluctuating gold prices. 5. Tabulations comprise all model blocks at a cutoff gold grade of 0.005 oz/ton (0.17 g/tonne) for all material within optimized pits at variable gold prices. Pit optimizations used a throughput rate of 20,000 tons/day (18,144 tonnes/day), assumed variable metallurgical gold recoveries that average 74% for Main Mercur and 79% for South Mercur, variable net smelter return royalties with a block-weighted average of 2.1%, mining costs of US$2.50/ton (US$2.76/tonne) mined, heap leach processing costs of US$4.05/ton (US$4.46/tonne) processed, general and administrative costs of $0.82/ton (US$0.90/tonne) processed. 6. Tabulations at gold prices lower than the base case of $2,000/oz Au represent subsets of the current Mineral Resources. 7. Tabulations at gold prices higher than the base case reflect the potential for increased Mineral Resources and are provided for information only. 8. The average grades of the tabulations are comprised of the weighted average of block-diluted grades within the optimized pits. Alluvium, dump and backfill materials are not included in the tabulations. 9. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 10. Rounding may result in apparent discrepancies between tons, grade, and contained metal content.

Figure 1 presents an overview map for the Mercur Project area and the location of reported Mineral Resources, exploration targets, key existing infrastructure, and proposed new facilities on the property.

Figure 1: Overview Map

Open Pit Heap Leach PEA

The PEA was developed using conventional open pit hard rock mining methods at a nominal rate for mineralized material of 18,144 tonnes/day. The PEA mine fleet is conventional with loading accomplished by a 22 m3 hydraulic shovel and a 23 m3 front loader matched to up to sixteen 136−tonne class haul trucks.

During the initial four years of operations, mining would be expected to be undertaken concurrently at both the Main Mercur and South Mercur pits. The run-of-mine (“ROM”) mineralized material would be hauled to the proposed West Mercur plant site area then crushed, conveyor stacked and leached on a dedicated leach pad. During the last six years of operations, mining would be expected to be undertaken at Main Mercur only. The LOM average strip ratio for the Project is 2.8.

ROM mineralized material from the open pits would be processed in a conventional stationary three-stage crushing circuit to achieve a particle size of 100% passing 13 mm (0.5 inch). Crushedproduct would be stacked in 10-meter-high lifts on a heap leach facility located at West Mercur and leached with a low-concentration cyanide solution using a buried drip irrigation system. The resulting pregnant leach solution would be processed in an adsorption-desorption-recovery (“ADR”) plant for the recovery of gold resulting in the production of a final doré product.

LOM average metallurgical recovery for the Project is approximately 75% of contained gold and the estimated average annual gold production would be 95,600 ounces per year. The estimated average recovery reflects average recoveries of 74% for Main Mercur and 79% for South Mercur. Table 4 presents the mine and gold production schedule.

Table 4: Mining and Heap Leaching Schedule

UnitsYr -1Yr 10
ParameterYr 1Yr 2Yr 3Yr 4Yr 5Yr 6Yr 7Yr 8Yr 9Totals
Mineralized Rockk tonnes8512,4642,7412,6292,9083,7372,8412,5973,5272,2531,623
Pit to Stockpile28,169
k tonnes-4,2883,9853,8774,2435,4362,7764,8233,7873,0531,194
Pit to Crusher37,462
k tonnes8516,7536,7266,5067,1519,1735,6167,4197,3145,3052,816
Total Mined65,631
k tonnes-6,3176,6226,6416,6226,6226,6226,6416,6226,6226,298
Crusher to Heap65,631
g/tonne-0.580.520.570.590.430.570.640.660.870.72
Gold Grade0.60
k oz-12812411012112591122136141177
Contained Gold1275
%-84%79%76%77%76%74%80%78%71%58%
Recovery75%
k oz-107988494956898106100102
Recoverable Gold951
Waste Rockk tonnes85518,71217,19916,96014,31417,21019,57816,60515,85415,2053,827
Rock to Dumps156,318
k tonnes5743,138-18843733951,66510,5687,464236
Fill to Dumps24,516
k tonnes1,42921,84917,19916,97814,39717,58319,97318,27026,42222,6704,062
Total to Dumps180,834
All Rockk tonnes2,28028,60223,92523,48421,54926,75725,59025,69033,73627,9756,879
Total Mined246,465
wr:mr1.73.22.62.62.01.93.62.53.64.31.4
Strip Ratio2.8

Infrastructure

Some of the infrastructure from the original Mercur mining operation remains in serviceable condition. Wherever possible, refurbishment and reuse of the existing infrastructure is planned, including the following:

  • Site access and onsite roads;
  • Water supply system;
  • Fencing and gates;
  • Groundwater monitoring wells;
  • Stormwater management systems;
  • Office building; and,
  • Power substation and overhead power distribution lines.

All other major infrastructure from the previous operations were removed as part of prior site reclamation efforts and would need to be replaced for future operations. The primary new infrastructure that would be required to support the PEA plan include:

  • Crushing and conveyor stacking systems;
  • Process solution distribution and collection systems;
  • Heap leach pad;
  • Process solution and overflow ponds;
  • ADR plant/laboratory;
  • Main and South Mercur haul roads;
  • Water and power supply to the West Mercur area;
  • Truck shop and warehouse; and,
  • Administration and additional office buildings.

Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

Processing, infrastructure and general and administrative (“G&A”) capital and operating cost estimates for the Mercur PEA were developed by KCA. Mining equipment, mining preproduction and mine operating cost estimates were developed by RESPEC. Capital and operating costs were estimated based on first quarter 2025 US dollars.

Capital costs for most major equipment were estimated from one or more new supplier quotes or recent quotes for similar items. Table 5 provides a summary of the PEA capital costs. The estimating cost accuracy for the study is +/-35% (AACE Class 5). Rows and columns may not be added precisely due to rounding.

Table 5: Capital Cost Estimate

DescriptionCosts ($,000)
Pre-Production Capital
Process & Infrastructure (including spare parts)$115,036
Mining Capital & Mining Pre-Production$32,586
Indirect & Owner's Costs$4,258
Engineering, Procurement & Construction Management$13,804
Contingency$28,753
Total Pre-Production Capital$194,439
Working Capital & Initial Fills
Mining Working Capital$9,343
Process Working Capital$3,782
G&A Working Capital$567
Initial Fills$201
Total Working Capital$13,893
Total Pre-Production & Working Capital$208,331
Sustaining Capital
Process & Infrastructure$13,496
Indirect & EPCM$2,024
Mining$87,132
Contingency$7,461
Total Sustaining Capital$110,113
Reclamation & Closure Allowance (Gross)$39,790
LOM Total Capital Costs (Excluding Working Capital)$344,342

Processing and G&A costs were estimated by KCA from first principles. Labor costs were estimated using project-specific staffing, salary, wage, and benefit requirements. Unit consumption of materials, supplies, power, water and delivered supply costs were also estimated. The operating costs are based upon the ownership of all process production equipment and site facilities, including the onsite laboratory. Revival Gold would employ and direct all process operations, maintenance, and support personnel for all site activities.

Mining costs provided by RESPEC are based on owner mining costs using leased mining equipment. Leases are based on a five-year term; consequently, all leased equipment would be owned by Revival Gold before the end of mining operations.

Economic Analysis

Based on the estimated production schedule, capital costs and operating costs, a cash flow model was prepared by KCA for the economic analysis of the Project. All information used in this economic evaluation was derived from work completed by KCA and RESPEC, with support by Revival Gold.

Project economics were evaluated using a discounted cash flow method that measures the beforetax and after-tax Net Present Value (“NPV”) of future cash flow streams. The PEA economic model was based on the following key assumptions:

  • A gold price of $2,175 per ounce.
  • The mine production schedule developed by RESPEC with a nominal mining and processing rate of 18,144 tonnes per day.
  • A period of analysis of 15 years that includes one year of investment and pre-production, 10 years of production, and four years for reclamation and closure.
  • Capital and operating costs as summarized in Table 6 and described in the preceding section.

Project economics are based on criteria from the cash flow model that are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Economic Analysis Summary

Financial ParametersResults
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pre-Tax30.8%
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), After-Tax26.5%
Average Annual Cashflow (Pre-Tax)$83 million
NPV @ 5% (Pre-Tax)$373 million
Average Annual Cashflow (After-Tax)$71 million
NPV @ 5% (After-Tax)$294 million
Gold Price Assumption (US$/ounce Au)$2,175 /ounce Au
Pay-Back Period (Years based on After-Tax)3.6 years
Capital Costs (Sales Tax Included)
Initial Capital$194million
Working Capital & Initial Fills$14million
LOM Sustaining Capital$110million
Reclamation & Closure (Gross)$40million
Operating Costs (Average LOM)
Mining$11.44/tonne processed
Processing & Support$4.63/tonne processed
G&A$0.69/tonne processed
All-in Sustaining Cost$1,363/ounce Au
Cash Cost$1,205/ounce Au
Production Data
Life of Mine9.95 Years
Process Throughput, average18,144 tonnes/day
Metallurgical Recovery Au (Overall)75%
Average Annual Gold Production95,600 ounces Au
Total Gold Produced951,000 ounces Au
LOM Strip Ratio (Waste Rock : Mineralized Rock)2.8

Figure 2 presents the estimated annual gold production and cumulative after-tax cash flow from pre-production through mine closure at $2,175 per ounce of gold.

Figure 2: Annual Gold Production and Cumulative After-Tax Cash Flow

180 $600,000

160 $500,000

140 $400,000

120 $300,000

100 $200,000

80 $100,000

60 $0

40 -$100,000

20 -$200,000

0 -$300,000 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Years

A sensitivity analysis was performed using the PEA economic model. Figure 3 and Figure 4 provide the after-tax IRR and after-tax NPV5% sensitivities to gold price, capital cost, and operating cost, respectively.

Figure 3: After-Tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis

50%

GoldPrice
Capital Cost
Operating Cost

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125%

Percentage of Base Case

← Back to feed