Welcome to the webcast. Thank you for joining us to discuss the positive results of the preliminary economic assessment of our Fenelon project. Today with me from the senior management team of Wallbridge, I have Brian Penny, our CFO, Attila Pentek, our VP Exploration, Francois Chabot, Manager of Technical Studies, Sean Stokes, our Corporate Secretary, and Victoria Vargas, our Capital Markets Advisor. We'll go through the presentation, and we'll then open the Q&A session. You can submit your questions regarding the PEA by typing your question in the Q&A section. Sean will read out your topical questions, and we'll address them. Before we proceed, we'll be making forward-looking statements, and I encourage you to read the disclaimers in the PEA news release and this presentation and on our website. In particular, the PEA mine plan and economic model includes numerous assumptions and the use of inferred mineral resources. Inferred mineral resources are considered to be too speculative to be used in an economic analysis, except as allowed for by the NI 43-101 in the PEA studies. There is no guarantee that inferred mineral resources can be converted to indicated or measured mineral resources, and as such, there is no guarantee the project economics described herein will be achieved. This PEA demonstrates the economic potential of the Fenelon deposit as a standalone operation based on the mineral resource estimate of January 2023. The deposit is only drilled to about 1,000 m. There is potential for future growth within and in the vicinity of the current Fenelon footprint, and also growth potential from other nearby deposits, such as Martiniere, which could improve the economics of the project in the future. Let's watch a short video explaining the Fenelon deposit and the approach we've taken in demonstrating its mining and processing potential. Wallbridge Mining Company owns a district-scale land package in the prolific Abitibi Greenstone Belt in Québec, Canada. We currently have over 5 million ounces of combined gold endowment at two growing deposits of Fenelon and Martiniere, along the Sunday Lake Deformation Zone, the same structure hosting Canada's Detour Lake Mine with over 40 million ounces of gold. Wallbridge purchased a small 1,000 hectare property from Balmoral Resources, called Fenelon, in October 2016, which included a small mineral resource of about 40,000 ounces, now referred to as the Gabbro Zones. We continued exploration in 2017 and 2018 in the same zone, and while testing one of the exploration targets in late 2018, early 2019, we discovered the Tabasco-Cayenne Zones, and subsequently, the Area 51 Zones, which earned us the Discovery of the Year by AEMQ in 2020. Our successful exploration results following those discoveries allowed us to acquire Balmoral Resources, which not only owned the rest of Fenelon property, but also owned the majority of the land along the Detour Fenelon gold trend, stretching 97 kilometers from the Ontario border, where the Detour Lake mine is operating. The total land package owned and controlled by Wallbridge is now over 800 square kilometers. Through successive and successful exploration campaigns since the discovery and acquisition, we now have two significant mineral resources at both Fenelon and Martiniere. We proceeded to advance the Fenelon deposit to a preliminary economic assessment, with the results just announced yesterday. The PEA, as reported in our June 26 news release, is based on the mineral resource estimate published in January of 2023, with 2.37 million ounces in the indicated category and 1.72 million ounces in the inferred category. The mineral resource estimate is primarily envisioned as an underground deposit. This PEA is based on the development of Fenelon as a standalone underground operation with a mining and processing capacity of 7,000 tons per day. Fenelon currently has underground infrastructure down to the depth of about 200 meters, which was completed at various times in the past, including the development completed in 2018 and in 2021 by Wallbridge. All existing underground infrastructure, such as ventilation raises and the exploration ramp to Area 51, are integrated in the PEA mine plan. In the initial two years of pre-production, we will continue to advance the main Tabasco ramp, which is sized at 5.7 meters wide by 5.5 meters high to deeper extents. The ramp system starts in the Tabasco Cayenne zones, and then there will be internal ramps to access Area 51 zones. The levels in the Tabasco- Cayenne zones are planned to be 40 meters floor to floor and 30 meters in Area 51, based on the mineralized zone geometry and rock mass classification. The underground infrastructure, including vent raises, will be developed during the two pre-production years. All underground infrastructure during pre-production year one will be developed by mining contractors. In pre-production year two, owner equipment and personnel are planned for lateral development with up to five development teams. All ventilation raises will be developed by mining contractors. We plan to start production from stopes in the year two of pre-production. Mineralized material from these stopes and development will be trucked to surface via the ramp, and will be stockpiled within the existing open pit. During these two pre-production years, all required underground infrastructure to support production will be put in place, including the paste backfill distribution network. At the same time, all surface facilities, including the mine site, the processing plant, the paste plant, tailings management facility, water management and treatment facilities, and main ventilation installations, will have been completed. All mineralized material and waste from the upper areas of the deposit will be trucked to surface using 63 ton trucks. Starting in the second quarter of production year 1, collar preparation and hoist that surface construction will start. Shaft sinking and construction of associated underground infrastructure, such as ore passes and underground crushing system, will start in year two of production and will be completed within approximately 36 months. The production shaft is designed to a depth of 1,040 meters. Starting in the last quarter of production year four, all underground material will be transported via the production shaft using a double drum hoist with 18 ton skips to surface for processing. The average size of the stopes from all zones is approximately 15,000 tons, with about 150 stopes mined out annually. The mining method would be long-hole, longitudinal method. The stopes are 5 meters -8 meters in width. This corresponds to about 40% of the stope tonnage. transverse method will be used for stopes with 8 meters to +15 meters in width. These correspond to about 60% of the total stope tonnage. Mineralized material from development will generate about 10% of the total production. The plant will process at an average constant rate of about 7,000 tons per day, starting in production year one, and will produce an average of about 212,000 ounces of gold annually. The underground system of ramp, accesses, ore passes, ventilation, pumping, and paste distribution system continue to be expanded to extract the rest of the deposit during the 12.3 years of mine life. This PEA only captures the deposit down to 1,040 meters. The deposit is open in all directions, and we see great opportunities to include additional ore tonnage, not only from below the lowest level, but also from additional parts of the deposit that are currently not included in the 2023 mineral resource estimate. The consulting group that we assembled to conduct this study has strong experience in mining, metallurgy, and infrastructure, both in design and cost estimation and in practical experience, and they're quite familiar with the deposits in Abitibi as well. We approached this PEA by incorporating real current costs, receiving estimates from contractors and suppliers, and we used current labor and consumable rates to be as current and have higher confidence as possible. We also compared our final estimates with current similar operations to ensure validity as best as possible. As seen here, we have attempted to have the most efficient capital allocation. It takes two full years of pre-production and construction to develop the surface and underground infrastructure to allow us to reach full production in year one. In mid-year one, we start preparing the shaft collar, while in full production from the ramp. The shaft construction will start in production year two and will be fully operational by the end of production year four. From there on, all material will be hoisted via the shaft until the final year of the operation. In terms of surface infrastructure, we will resurface the existing 24 km access road coming from the Provincial Highway 810 to the mine site and the campsite. We also plan to construct a 24 km hydroelectric power line from Hydro-Québec Network, just off the Highway 810 into the site. The campsite will include a facility to accommodate up to 340 people at any time during the operation. Additional temporary facilities are also designed for during the construction. The footprint of the mine site build-out around the existing facilities is very compact. It includes a phased tailings management facility, processing plant, water treatment facility, a maintenance shop, paste and cement plant, ore, waste, and overburden stockpile areas. The final metallurgy is quite straightforward. A great percentage of the gold is captured through gravity, thus the addition of gravity circuit in our is in our flow sheet. The flow sheet includes a carbon-in-leach or a CIL circuit, and the overall gold recovery of 96% has been used in the PEA, based on metallurgical test work done to date and the process plant design. The final tailings will go through a flotation circuit after detox to separate the sulfides from the tailings. Tailings will be deposited on surface or used as paste backfill. The sulfide concentrate will be sent to the paste plant for use as paste backfill. At 7,000 tons a day and diluted grades ranging from 2.4 to over 3 grams per ton during the 12.3 years of mine life, the project will have an average gold production of 212,000 ounces annually. As mentioned before, we've worked on efficient allocation of capital. The initial capital expenditures are estimated at about CAD 645 million. This includes the production of stopes during the pre-production years. Most of the estimates already included in with some contingencies. The applied contingencies are about CAD 98 million. The sustaining capital is higher than typical projects due to the fact that the shaft construction starts when we are in full production. The total cash costs is about $82 per ton milled, and or $749 per payable ounces. All-in sustaining costs are estimated at about $924 per ounce payable. We have requested an accounting firm with expertise in Québec mining taxes to also provide us with the tax estimations for the project, and the overall taxes payable are estimated at about $792 million. Based on the project parameters under the base case of $1,750 US per ounce of gold and the exchange rate of 1.3 CAD to 1 US dollar, the project will generate about $1.4 billion in after-tax cumulative cash flow for an average of about CAD 157 million of free cash flow annually during the life of mine. The project is most sensitive to gold price. It generates a solid NPV as well as IRR at various gold prices. It also is sensitive to operating costs, as can be seen here. Similar deposits in Abitibi include two current operations at Alamos Gold's Young-Davidson and Agnico Eagle's Goldex. Additionally, we see Wasamac of Agnico as another dialogue in terms of either deposit type or production profile. The operating deposits have similar production tonnage profiles, albeit at lower grades than Fenelon PEA, with a diluted grade of about 2.73 grams per ton. These bulk mineable operations have attractive cash costs and all-in sustaining costs, we see Fenelon's PEA to demonstrate a higher, better cost per ounce of gold payable, mainly due to the higher-grade nature of the Fenelon deposits as and also better gold recoveries. Now, in Northern Québec, all mining developments must follow the environmental assessment and review procedures under the regulations respecting the environmental and social impact assessment and review procedure applicable to the territory of James Bay and Northern Québec. Additionally, with a plant production capacity of 7,000 tons a day, the Fenelon project exceeds the 5,000 ton a day threshold for the federal environmental assessment procedures. Therefore, an environmental assessment in compliance with the requirements of the new Impact Assessment Act will be required. The acquisition of baseline environmental knowledge on the Fenelon property began several years ago and is still ongoing today. To date, the preliminary environmental characterization of the physical and biological environment have been carried out and are ongoing. The confirmation of the regulatory context made it possible to identify the scope of environmental studies required to obtain environmental authorizations, and inventory work is currently underway to fill these gaps. The project site is located on lands that are part of the traditional territories claimed by the Cree people of Waskaganish and Washaw Sibi, and by the Algonquin people of Abitibiwinni and Pikogan. The project is located also in the Washaw Sibi trap line. Wallbridge has always prioritized engaging stakeholders and implementing a consultation plan. We've so far had over 130 communication activities conducted since the acquisition, including meetings, site visits, and workshops. The First Nation communities of Waswanipi, Waskaganish, and Abitibiwinni have been extensively consulted. Concerns raised, including employment, entrepreneurial opportunities, training, land use and disturbance, water quality, impacts to wildlife, and the cumulative effects of all the projects in the area have been discussed. To date, Wallbridge has taken action to address these concerns and promote local benefits, including implementing a hiring and contracting policy and constructing a cultural center. Furthermore, we also signed a pre-development agreement with the Cree Nations of Waskaganish and Waswanipi, and the Cree Nation Government in 2022, and we're committed to continuing consultation with First Nations, local communities, and stakeholders. There are a number of opportunities to improve the economics of the project through additional studies and exploration. One important factor is that the deposit is still open in all directions. While the PEA captures the known resource down to about 1,000 meters, it's important to remember that we drilled a hole down to 1,500 meters and still intersected similar geology and mineralization with an intersection of 4 meters of 17 grams per ton. Our most recent press release at Fenelon identified also extensions of Area 51 zones around the current mineral resource envelope, both to the east, northwest, and south at Ripley. Notwithstanding the Fenelon growth potential, the Martiniere deposit located a mere 30 km away from Fenelon, and we believe Martiniere to be our next multimillion ounce deposit. In any production scenario, Martiniere would not need its own standalone processing infrastructure, as its material can be transported to Fenelon for processing to further improve the overall economics of the project. Projects such as Fenelon, with a projected annual production profile of more than 200,000 ounces, located in a mining-friendly jurisdiction with established infrastructure, substantial exploration potential, and access to clean hydroelectric energy, is highly desirable, yet exceedingly rare in the mining industry. This PEA is a great start and is a platform for growth. We'll take the required time to review various options to advance Fenelon in order to maximize its value for our shareholders. While doing so, we'll continue to test new areas of mineralization at Fenelon, and we also have a great near-term opportunity to incorporate satellite deposits such as Martiniere into future studies, giving us the potential for substantial synergies on a district scale. Our 2023 exploration programs will further delineate the size and scale of Fenelon and Martiniere deposits, while also targeting new greenfield discoveries on our vast land package. I now open the Q&A session and ask Sean Stokes to see if there are any questions. Thanks, Marz. Yeah, we do have some questions. First one would be an 8.4% contingency for initial CapEx seems low at a PEA level. Which major elements were costed from vendor quotes versus benchmarks and factors? Good question. First of all, most of the estimates that we've received from the consultants already had some contingencies included in there. More importantly, the equipment that we've received quotes from the equipment suppliers, which would be Sandvik, MacLean, and Caterpillar, already have these costs as, you know, at today's, so therefore, there was no contingency allowed for the for those equipments. In addition to what the consultants have provided, those are the reasons why we have a total of CAD 98 million of contingencies added to the already estimated cost based on current rates. Next question is, asking if we can expand on the CAD 140 million in sustaining CapEx for mining equipment versus the CAD 18 million in initial CapEx. Yeah. So as mentioned, in the first year of pre-production, we actually are having contractors, and we've included their costs of development during the first year. The number of the equipment that we're getting from the manufacturers really starts in the second year of pre-production and then continuously added based on the production profile that we have starting in year one. So that's why the CAD 18 million is in the CapEx. The way we have done it is actually through a lease agreement with the equipment suppliers based on a four-year term. Included already in those is the interest of those equipment costs added to the project. That's separate from what we actually calculate in the DCF. Okay, what are the initial thoughts on how Martiniere could be incorporated into a future mine plan? Obviously, Martiniere is still a couple of years away from where Fenelon is in terms of its stage. We see great potential for us to be able to bring Martiniere to potentially a multimillion-ounce deposit. By the time the Fenelon is probably at the feasibility stage, we believe we'd be able to, based on the exploration efforts that we could do at Martiniere, be able to include that in the future economic studies of Fenelon. Martiniere is only 30 kilometers away. We certainly know that transportation costs can be added to the cut-off grade of Martiniere and be able to bring that project with all the standalone infrastructure at Martiniere, and process all of that at the hub, which would be Fenelon. This also goes for any other potential deposits that may be discovered along the entire land pack. There's a question on the rationale for using contractors to operate the surface crusher in the initial stage of the production, but before the shaft is operational. Well, the rationale for that is obviously in order to be able to continue the ramp-up of your staffing, your equipment, and everything else, you typically would start with the contractors doing the work and then, you know, gradually be able to convert to your own owned equipment and owned labor. next one is that the head grade profile looks very steady. Is there an opportunity to pull forward higher-grade areas in the mine plan, or is this done intentionally to slow due to mill limits? There has been a lot of work on the iteration process with respect to the mine plan. First of all, the production profile is pretty steady, partly because you actually, in the pre-production years, the two years of pre-production, you actually have close to about 300,000 tons of stockpile already built. The first quarter of the production year one, still at about 6,000 tons a day, and really starts to steady at that 7,000 tons a day, starting about second quarter of year one of production. That's why, number one, it's sort of steadied from about the half of year one. More importantly, there's always opportunities based on additional drilling, additional, growth of the deposit in the upper areas to be able to, you know, take advantage of some of the higher grade areas to improve the economics of the project. That's exactly why in the opportunity section that I mentioned, additional, exploration, either infill drilling or expansion drilling, would potentially add to the economics of the project. Marz, we have a couple of questions here on permitting, timelines and requirements. Just what are the requirements? If we can get a sense of what the timelines are for permitting. Yeah, obviously, it's still very early. My experience in Québec is that the timeline for permitting is typically more expedited than other provinces in Canada. It could be anywhere between 18 months to three years for normal, you know, operations. When it comes to the when it comes to the federal assessment, typically, you could add an additional 12 months to that timeline, so it could be anywhere between 2-4 years for the permitting process. Again, it all depends on the on the project specifics. But what's really good about this project is because the footprint at the site is quite compact. There really isn't an open pit. The current open pit is essentially what the size of the pit would be, and the pit itself is only generate about 10,000 ounces in the last year of operation. We are using the existing pits, we are, you know, adding a bit of an overburden removal to be able to use that as an area for stock pile up or in the initial, two years of pre-production. Okay. We may have addressed this to a degree, but just a question on synergies amongst Martiniere and Fenelon, potentially, in terms of processing. Maybe you could just add a little more color on that. Depending on the size of Martiniere, I mean, if Martiniere, as we believe, could be a next multimillion-ounce deposit, there's opportunities for us to actually look at this project with a, perhaps, a higher production profile from a milling point of view. So you still have the 7,000 ton a day at Fenelon and whatever the additional production profile from Martiniere could be, or it could be an extension of the life of Fenelon. Those will all be reviewed and decided once Martiniere is at a stage where it can be included into an economic study. There's a question here, as to whether there's any thought being given to a bulk sample to raise funding. Well, my experience is that typically, the bulk samples don't generate a revenue for you to carry out, you know, with the cash flows, to be able to start a production. Personally believe that bulk samples are really a de-risking tool, and depending on the future economic studies and additional exploration that we're doing, we'll evaluate the need for a bulk sample at Fenelon. Obviously, it's always been as a de-risking element. This isn't a question, we did get congratulations on an impressive PEA. There's a couple questions here. We've noted the 4% royalty, GROY shows a 2% royalty on Fenelon. Who controls the remaining 2%? The Fenelon Prime, as it is currently in the mineral resource estimate, has a 4% royalty. 2% is with Gold Royalty Corp. There is an additional 1% with Franco-Nevada and an additional 1% owned by Eric Sprott. None of those royalties had been given or entered into by Wallbridge. Those are all historic royalties. The 1% royalty that Eric Sprott owns, I believe, was purchased from Balmoral, and that was when we purchased the Fenelon property from Balmoral. That was there. Outside of the current mineral resource estimate, the royalty is reduced down to about 1%, I believe, or less than 4%, and that's in our annual information and all of our disclosures. One more question here: What percentage of the projected CapEx is sunk costs, and what percentage range of sensitivity analysis have you completed? None of the current capital is sunk costs. These are all estimated as future costs that will be incorporated into the project, except for the existing development, but those costs have not been included at all into the PEA. What was the second part of the question, Sean? It was percentage range of sensitivity analysis that's been completed. The sensitivity analysis is already in the press release, and I think in the presentation as well. We have looked at the sensitivity analysis for various gold prices, and those will also be probably expanded in the technical report that will be due within less than 45 days. Now more to the potential on upside. Can you expand a bit on the potential of the Tabasco and Cayenne zones? I mean, over the past few months, we've delivered some of the exploration results from our drilling this year. Remember, this 2023 exploration program that we have designed, it's about 50,000 meters, 25,000 of it is at Martiniere, and the other 25,000 is, you know, at Fenelon and other potential targets. The exploration drilling we're doing these days is an incremental growth to the deposit, but more importantly, trying to get the ultimate, hopefully the ultimate size potential of both Fenelon and Martiniere and other discoveries that we can find. At Fenelon, these 200 m or 300 m step outs continue to demonstrate the expansion potential of the Fenelon deposit, and the recent press release at Martiniere, with 200 m or 300 m step outs, again, demonstrates its gold potential. These deposits are really only constrained by the amount of drilling and not by geology. We'll continue to you know, once we get back, obviously everyone knows as a result of the current fire situation in Québec, we're still restricted from going to the site. Once we can get back, we'll continue drilling and executing the 2023 program. In the meantime, for whatever we have drilled up to the end of May, prior to evacuation due to the fire, we'll be receiving the results of those drilling, and we'll continue to disclose those as they arrive. A question here: Have you considered engaging the First Nations to finance and build the transmission line for Fenelon, similar to what Osisko Mining did for the three First Nation Waswanipi, transferring CapEx into sustaining? No, there hasn't been any discussion yet, because obviously the first step was for us to really, get this PEA out. Certainly, that's an opportunity, that certainly reduces the CapEx. However, as we all know, it reduces the CapEx, but, certainly could increase and would increase the operating costs, because it's, you know, someone has to pay for that capital. Those discussions will be had in the future as we advance the project. Thanks, Marz. One more. Why doesn't the PEA include open pit mining of the three indicated small pit of Fenelon? There were a total of four small open pits in the mineral resource estimate. You know, when we looked at the deposit, especially the three pits that are in the area of 51, it's, the economics of mining those and still leaving a crown pillar, you know, below the overburden, below about 20-25 meters of overburden, was more attractive than taking those as an open pit. Therefore, there really isn't an open pit in area 51. The Gabbro already, there is an existing open pit that at the end of the project, it's brought in whatever the number of ounces that are in that Gabbro within that pit that will be taken out. It's all based on the economics, trade-offs. One more came in here. The, the mineral resource estimate shows approximately two years of production can be achieved by open pit mining at Martiniere. Why wasn't this incorporated into the PEA? As I mentioned, Martiniere currently still far away from being able to be looked at from an economic point of view. It still requires to really understand the size potential of Martiniere. Martiniere has not been included into this economic study. Perfect. Thanks, Marz. That's all the questions. Thank you, all. I'd like to thank everybody for joining us. As you know, there is the contact information. If you have further questions, please send your questions to Victoria Vargas and or myself. We'll definitely answer the topical questions with respect to this PEA. Thanks again for attending.