This meeting is being recorded. I'm Chris Fogg. I lead Chris Fogg. I lead our investor relations efforts. Today we have with us Laurel Sayer, President and CEO, McKinsey Lyon, VP of Public Affairs, and Jessica Largent, CFO. We will have a Q&A session at the end of the presentation. As we go along today, please note that you can use the Q&A button to submit questions for our panelists. Over to you, Laurel. Thank you, Chris. Our vision at Perpetua is to develop one of the lowest cost open pit gold mines in the U.S. We will provide the country with a critical mineral important for national defense and clean energy transition, and we will restore an abandoned brownfield site. Please take a moment to review our cautionary language on slides two and three. Perpetua Resources investment thesis has never been stronger. We plan to redevelop one of the largest, lowest cost and long life gold projects in the U.S. Our project has great economics with a 15-year reserve life, a payback period of less than three years, and an internal rate of return greater than 20%. We have a valuable byproduct in antimony. Our project is located in one of the best mining jurisdictions in the world, and we have strong community support. This strong support we have in Idaho has been built over the last decade as our communities and our politicians have seen our commitment to responsible mining and restoration at Stibnite. Our goal is to establish a national strategic asset for critical mineral and gold production. We'll simultaneously restore an area abandoned after 100 years of mining activity using a responsible and sustainable approach to modern mining that will benefit all stakeholders. This next slide shows why we can do that. With 4.8 million ounces of reserves, the Stibnite Project is one of the largest gold reserves in the U.S. not owned by a major producer, and it is the seventh largest reserve out of all U.S. gold deposits. In total, we have 6 million ounces of measured and indicated resources, with an additional 1.2 million ounces of inferred resources. On the antimony side, we have reserves of 148 million pounds and 206 million pounds in measured and indicated resources. Gold drives the economics of our project, making the site restoration and the antimony production feasible. Our project is located in mining country. Idaho has long been nicknamed the Gem State. In fact, Idaho is listed in the top 10 best mining jurisdictions in the world, according to the Fraser Institute. We also have very strong infrastructure with access to low cost Idaho Power and a talented and experienced workforce. Once permitted, there is low geopolitical risk compared with other jurisdictions, and we are on the downhill side of the permitting process. Today, we're one big step closer to achieving our vision following the release of the Supplemental Draft EIS for public comment and the successful conclusion of that public comment period in early January of this year. Importantly, our mine plan was identified as the Preferred Alternative in the draft document. Under NEPA, a Preferred Alternative is identified by a federal agency to let the public know which action the agency is leaning towards selecting as final. The path forward from here is clear from a process standpoint, and we anticipate a permitting schedule update from the Forest Service in the coming months after comments are received. Currently, we anticipate about six-eight months until a final EIS and draft Record of Decision is published, and then another six months or so before a final Record of Decision. Assuming a construction decision is made in the first half of 2024, our project is expected to be in production by 2027. I'll hand it over to Mckinsey to provide an update on the Supplemental Draft EIS comment period that concluded in January. Thank you, Laurel. A more sustainable future has always been a pillar of Perpetua's strategy. Our proposed mine plan was built with responsible solutions in mind. This vision that we could go back to this site and make it better was proven possible in that Supplemental Draft EIS. It showed clear examples of how the project would leave water, habitat, and the river improved. When we take these positive environmental outcomes and pair them with a robust community engagement and support, we were then able to show our regulators that there is overwhelming support to move this project forward. In fact, during that Supplemental Draft EIS comment period, over 19,000 comments were received on the Supplemental Draft EIS. Of these, we know that at least 15,500, the clear majority of our stakeholders are supportive of our plan and that Americans are ready to move forward with domestic critical mineral development. Reviewing these comments, a few things have stuck out to our team. First, that every state in the country was represented. Comment letters were submitted from stakeholders in every state telling us that this project is not just important for Idaho. Second, we saw a new sense of urgency. Thousands of people wrote in to say that now is the time to permit this project, citing either the thoroughness of the NEPA process and the review that has now lasted for over six years, and that the project was identified as a Preferred Alternative, it is now time to move forward. We heard a very real recognition that fixing our supply chains begins with producing minerals right here at home. Third, we saw growing political support for the project. Over 95 letters were submitted from Idaho government officials from both sides of the aisle, demonstrating growing bipartisan support and the recognition of our plan of restoration and operations. What was also highlighted in many of these letters was how Perpetua's approach has been different. We believe that our unique approach is the reason that there is strong support for this project. We've developed a strong deep bench of experienced employees with diverse backgrounds and skill sets that make our entire team stronger. We've listened. We've developed an open door policy of listening first, and then we work together with our community members and other stakeholders to find solutions. Over the years, this has included our mine access road, public recreational access, early fish passage solutions, and now our overall improved project design are all examples where we have listened to our community and our project and design have been influenced by their stakeholder feedback. We're continuing to listen. Not all of the feedback that we received on or that the Forest Service received on the supplemental was positive. However, none of it was surprising. While there are some folks who will just never support the project, we are doing everything we can to communicate and find solutions with those who are willing to engage. Now our technical team is also hard at work with regulators to help answer any questions that may have arisen and provide information as requested to the Forest Service. After six years of regulatory review, we are confident that we have made every effort to limit the project impacts, to mitigate risk, and to provide benefits to the site and to our communities. What is clear is that our plan is the best and most viable action to restore this site and provide the critical minerals that we need today. As I mentioned, the Supplemental Draft EIS confirmed our vision. This vision that we could bring net benefits to an abandoned site through redevelopment. In fact, the supplemental showed that we will provide or open up 20 miles of additional habitat, river habitat on the East Fork/South Fork Salmon River, resulting in a major permanent regional and beneficial effect on Chinook salmon, on steelhead, and bull trout in Westslope cutthroat trout. It showed that water quality will be improved over baseline conditions, including 40%-47% reduction in arsenic today. Water temperature has been improved by 5 degrees Celsius compared to our plan in 2020 in the Draft EIS. What we also know is that the no-action alternative at Stibnite will not improve environmental conditions, we believe that private investment in cooperation with state and local and federal government is the answer. You know, I will say that one question we've gotten a lot lately is, "Isn't this just a gold project?" The answer is yes, this is a gold project. It is a gold production that unlocks the economic returns to fund site restoration and produce the country's only reserve of antimony. You know, antimony is very much the unsung hero of the critical mineral world. From flame retardants to solar panels and semiconductors in the energy and technology industries, antimony is critical for economic and national security and our clean energy future. The global supply of antimony has been under the control of the Chinese and their interests for decades. More recently, in the last decade or so, the Chinese government has systematically taken even greater control over the antimony market by purchasing mineral resources and processing facilities across the globe. In fact, in 2022, 90% of the global supply of antimony came from China, Russia, and Tajikistan without domestic production in the United States at all. As one of the largest economic reserves of antimony not controlled by the Chinese, our project could help put us back in control of our supply chain for clean energy, technology, and defense materials. This is why we believe the Stibnite Gold Project is more firmly established today as a national strategic asset. Antimony is essential and a non-replaceable component in the primers for hundreds of munition types, everything from small caliber ammunition to mortars and tank weaponry. Interestingly, it's also found in things like military clothing and night vision goggles, and infrared sensors, and flares, and other critical defense applications. It is antimony trisulfide or stibnite that is the key chemical formulation needed for the primers in multiple munition types. Our project has the only identified source able to meet defense requirements. If our project does not move forward, there are no domestic alternatives that can meet the military's immediate need. We're confident in our ability to meet the military specifications for antimony trisulfide because historically, our site supplied the War Department with over 90% of the antimony demand during World War II, and helped define what is today the current military spec or specifications for these military products. Perpetua has now received several grants and awards in the recent months through the U.S. Department of Defense because the Stibnite project's antimony endowment, because of our endowment. I'll now turn it over to Jess to talk a little bit more about these awards. All right. Thanks, McKinsey. In December of 2022, we received a critical minerals award through the Department of Defense under the Defense Production Act Title III program to advance our permitting and construction readiness for the project. The Title III program is intended to ensure that America has the resources, materials, and technologies needed for national security. Perpetua was awarded up to $24.8 million to complete the environmental and engineering studies necessary to obtain a final Environmental Impact Statement, a final Record of Decision, and all of our other ancillary permits. Under the agreement, we will request reimbursement for costs related to environmental baseline data monitoring, environmental and technical studies, and other activities related to advancing our construction readiness and the overall permitting process for the Stibnite Gold Project. We submitted our first request for reimbursement in January and expect that the full defense award, combined with our current cash resources, will provide us with sufficient liquidity to complete permitting and early restoration activities, as well as support us bringing forward certain construction readiness activities. It's worth noting that this award is separate from the Small Business Innovation Research Phase 1 funding awards that we received in September 2022 by the Defense Logistics Agency. We do plan to continue to assess government funding opportunities as we move forward and complete major milestones. Our antimony endowment, as Laurel mentioned earlier, sets us apart from other gold mining projects. Our project alone could supply about 35% of total U.S. annual demand for antimony over the first six years of our production. We plan to produce an antimony concentrate at scale, but we are also evaluating opportunities to produce military-grade antimony trisulfide. As Mckinsey mentioned earlier, we are confident we can do it, given our site has done it before, helping to define current antimony specifications for multiple munitions products. Antimony is both a strategic and valuable byproduct, but it is the gold that drives the superior cash flows shown in our 2020 feasibility study. Our annual gold production will average approximately 300,000 ounces per year over the mine life and more than 460,000 ounces per year in the first four years of production, which would make it the largest producing mine in the U.S. outside of the Nevada Gold Mines Joint Venture. Over our 15-year mine life, average annual after-tax cash flow will be nearly $300 million a year, assuming an $1,850 per ounce gold price. This results in a payback period of about two and a half years and an internal rate of return of about 28%. Our project will be powered by the lowest carbon emissions grid in the nation. Our ability to source that low cost Idaho hydropower, combined with a low strip ratio and an antimony byproduct credit of $70 per ounce, that puts us well within the lowest quartile of the global cost curve. Our life of mine, all-in sustaining costs will average less than $650 per ounce over life of mine. In the first four years it will be less than $450 per ounce. Our production profile, low cost, and cash flows from the project leads to a compelling net present value for new investors. Using our base $1,600 gold price, the project has an NPV of greater than $1.3 billion with a 55% discount rate and delivers an internal rate of return of more than 22%. We have really good leverage to higher gold prices as well, where our NPV increases to approximately $1.9 billion at today's gold price or around $1,850 gold. Most importantly, our project is resilient to lower gold prices given our solid position on the cost curve. Based on our current market cap, we are trading at nearly the widest discount to NAV despite achieving significant milestones, and this represents a very attractive entry price for new investors. Despite our recent achievements and compelling economics, we continue to trade at a steep discount relative to peers. Permitted peers traded a premium, this is the value our team is working hard to unlock. We are now closer than ever to a final EIS and Record of Decision, with support from the federal government to complete this work. Looking ahead, we have some very exciting milestones, including our next major permitting catalyst. We expect a detailed schedule update for the remainder of the permitting process from the Forest Service in the coming months. Depending on that timeline, we could look to kick off project financing later this year to ensure we're ready to begin construction in the summer of 2024 once all permits are received. Summing it all up, we are unique because we bring solutions. We have a large, low cost and high grade open pit gold mine. We will offer the only domestic mine source of the critical mineral antimony, and we will use mine development to fund restoration at an abandoned mine site. Thank you for your time today, and I'll hand it back over to Chris to open up for Q&A. Great. Thanks, Jess, and thank you to the rest of our panelists. As a reminder to our audience, if you have any questions, please feel free to submit those through the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. We've had a couple come through already, so we will get started here on Q&A. This first question, I think is a good one for you, Laurel. What are the next steps in the permitting process, and why are you confident that the project will be permitted now when it has taken over six years to get here? Well, thank you. That's a great question, but I wanna begin by saying that we are very, very confident in the path forward from here. Our mine plan was identified as the Preferred Alternative. That means that the Forest Service is letting the public know which way it's leaning as we advance towards a final EIS. We had a very successful 75-day public comment period that ended in January with no extensions. The next steps in the process include that the Forest Service is reviewing the comments. They're putting them in buckets and preparing response to incorporate into the final environmental impact statement. They'll release that final EIS and draft Record of Decision, that's currently expected around the middle of this year in 2023. A final Record of Decision, we believe is achievable in late 2023 or early 2024. In addition to the federal NEPA process, we are also advancing many other federal, state, and local permitting requirements in parallel and pulling forward construction readiness activities, which the Defense Production Act supports. We focus very much on the NEPA process, and we do that because that is the big one for our project. Many of the other ancillary permits are dependent on the Record of Decision. Our goal is to put our company and project in a position where once we receive this final Record of Decision, we can move quickly and efficiently through the rest of the permitting and then into construction. Great. Thanks, Laurel. I'm gonna combine two of these questions. It's both relate to the details of the process from here. The first part, maybe another good one for you, Laurel, is what exactly more work is involved to get to a final permit? What exactly is involved from here in terms of sampling and study work? The second part is related to the period after, if we get the permit. This one reads: It appears that final approval may be received in approximately one year and production will start in 2027. What tasks will be done during the period from approval to production? Maybe the first part for you, Laurel, from here to a final ROD, and then Jess, maybe the second part, you know, what does the construction period look like? There's a big difference between study work that goes into an EIS versus follow-up analysis and requests for additional information. The follow-up work we anticipate related to NEPA is mostly desktop work, going back through models work, and work that previously has been completed and answering any remaining questions from regulators. There's the work related to the ancillary permits, like drilling and setting up water monitoring wells to meet those requirements. This is work that we have planned for this year and some of which has already started. There's the detailed engineering which the funding through the Defense Production Act provides for. These include detailed designs for roads and power lines that we are now able to pull forward and ensure that we're ready to begin construction once we get permitted. Jess, I'll let you follow up on the construction period. You're on mute. Thanks. Laurel is starting to touch on it, a bit, but the good news is, given the amount of time we've had getting feedback on the project, perfecting the project, and doing all of the environmental and engineering work, we do have a solid feasibility study out. We have a known flow sheet and mine plan that's in the process of getting final approval. To answer the question around if you assume final permits about a year from now, then we'd be looking to start building and constructing the summer of 2024. There's work that actually has to take place prior to that, like final detailed engineering design work. That's some of the funding through the Defense Production Act, what's so cool about it is we would have held off on spending those dollars, until we had permits in hand, given we're a junior company and, you know, historically have had to look at the equity markets to help fund the project. What they've done through this funding is said, "You know what? We want you to be construction ready once you receive those permits, so we're gonna start funding that work now." We're actually getting to bring forward that detailed engineering work for year one of construction. Year one of construction is really focused around building the road and power line to site to then unlock, the next sort of year and a half to two years of construction work to build the on-site infrastructure and get the processing plant up and running. Big picture, it's a two and a half to three-year construction timeframe. To get ready for that, we have to start all the final detailed engineering work for each of those chunks of construction which we get to do now with this DPA funding. That's a big chunk of work. We also touched on in the presentation, we'll start to look to get project financing set up. you know, reaching out to lenders and the traditional debt groups that help with project financing to make sure we're financed to actually build and spend those dollars over the three years. Lots of work coming our way. Really exciting time to know we're on the downhill side of permitting, and now we're getting to start to be prepared to construct this project, that we're all quite proud of. Thanks, Jess. We'll stick with you because this is a related question on the timing of the DPA funding. This one reads: What is the latest you can expect the $24 million, or the $24.8 million, if this is, sounds like a concern if this is delayed too long? Maybe the way I'll answer that is to give a little bit more context on the funding itself. Again, the $24.8 million is to help us advance through permitting and start those construction readiness activities. A big chunk of that's funding the work that's already taking place. The agreement is over a two-year timeframe, essentially 2023 and 2024. The way it works is we will essentially invoice the Department of Defense for work that's completed on a monthly basis that falls into the items within scope. We are already under agreement. As I mentioned, we submitted our first invoice for the month of January, there's no big risk in terms of delays on the funding itself. If you're asking around permitting delays, again, we are establishing a national you know, strategic asset here and view the Department of Defense now as almost a partner in our project. We are committed to getting antimony in their hands eventually. We will work to keep the permitting process as efficient as possible and continue to advance the construction readiness in parallel so we can build quickly. Great. Thanks, Jess. Another question here. This is a good one for you, McKinsey. related to the presidential memo that we saw come out this week from the Biden administration. Reads: What is the significance of the February 27th presidential memorandum? Can you speak to that at all? Sure. I think many of us are still trying to figure it out specifically, but in broad strokes, what it did was that it provided additional presidential authority for more materials or types of materials to be able to fall into Defense Production Act funding authority. In doing so, it also waived certain statutory requirements that limit how Defense Production Act is used. Doing things like expanding how much funding a specific project could receive, which has currently been capped at about $50 million. It broadens who can apply, and then it also provides more resources. From a big picture perspective, though, it is a clear statement from the administration that the industrial base needs to get ready and that they need to focus on industrial base readiness. you know, he says that we need a robust, resilient and sustainable industrial base. I think it's a clear indication that they realize that mining is a part of that demand. I think there's a lot of, there's a lot that we can read into that. for us and our project, you know, I think it's just another signal that things like antimony are critical and are no longer on a want list, but now are on a need list, that we need to move this type of project forward. we're advancing this project to help supply and to help address this shortfall of the critical mineral antimony that's so essential on the defense side. We'll continue this work and, I think hopefully, we can continue a solid relationship here. Excellent. Thanks, Mckinsey. We'll stick with you for this next one. I've seen a few of these, so I've combined this one, but it's regarding, you know, maybe more negative comments or the opposition to the project. Could you speak to, you know, the groups like ICL and others who have publicly come out against the project, and what are our thoughts on that, and how does it impact the project from here? No, that's a good question. I think what's really important to note is that, first, this criticism and the opposition that we're hearing at the moment is not new. In fact, most of the criticism that we're hearing has already been addressed through the Supplemental Draft EIS. Now it's really up to us to go back to these stakeholders where we already have really strong relationships and just pointing out, oh, you know, on safety, here are the mechanisms and the protocols that we've already put in place, and kind of helping them dissect, you know, what is a fairly large and complicated Supplemental Draft EIS. One, it's not necessarily new. Two, most of the work has already been addressed. Third, you know, one of the things that the Forest Service is paying attention to right now is the foundation we've already built. What is that infrastructure on the community side that we've already put in a lot of work to ensure things like regular communication or the commitments we've made on, hiring local and the work and the benefits we can bring to the local economy. On things like our Stibnite Advisory Council, which is a mechanism through a community agreement that helps us find these partnerships locally and address concerns as we go. The Forest Service is looking at our track record of listening and institutionalizing the work that we do to help address these concerns. It's, you know, these are certainly things that we're gonna continue to work on. We think the work has largely been done from the project side, and now it's, you know, how do we go address specific things with our local communities that can be done outside of the NEPA process. Excellent. Thanks, McKinsey. Next one here for, is probably a good one for you, Jess. Why should I invest in Perpetua now? Why not wait until you have all the permits? When do we get a lot? Great question. I think it's pretty simple because there's really good value today. As we showed in a slide earlier, our peers are trading at three to six times our current price to NAV, which demonstrates significant upside potential, and we'd expect to rerate as we continue through permitting and get closer to a construction decision. If you look at the average analyst price target, 12-month price target on our shares, it's about $10 compared to our current price of about $3.50 per share. Another thing to point, I think we sort of touched around it, but I'll just make the statement very clear. We are funded with our current cash resources and the DPA award, which essentially doubled our cash position, which mitigates the risk of any, you know, near-term equity dilution. Most importantly, we have an emerging national strategic asset. There's no other domestic mine source of antimony that can meet the nation's needs. We are 6+ years into the permitting process and on the downhill side, and we are ready. I think I saw another question come through just about why do you think we're so undervalued? It's clear, I mean, we are at the bottom of the Lassonde Curve. We are six years into permitting. There's headlines that aren't helpful for the mining industry in general, that I think the market is missing what is different about our project. We are bringing solutions to the environment. We are supplying a very critical mineral. There's a list of about 50 critical minerals, but I think there's prioritization within those. When antimony is controlled by, you know, more than 90% by China, Russia, and Tajikistan, I think it's pretty safe to say antimony is a very critical mineral. I think there's great value in our share price today. Excellent. Thank you, Jess. With that, it looks like we covered all of the questions that we got. If I missed anything, it was not intentional, but please see this slide here. Our contact information is right here. Please feel free to reach out now or anytime with any questions you have. We're always happy to talk, and we look forward to hosting another one of these very soon. Hopefully we'll see it all again. Thank you. Take care.