Centerra Gold, Inc. Q1 FY2025 earnings call

• Production and Cash Flow: Generated positive free cash flow at both operations. Gold production in the quarter was approximately 60,000 ounces and copper production was ~12 million pounds. Cash balance was $608 million.
• Kemess Update: Published an updated resource with gold mineral resources estimated to contain 2.7 million ounces of indicated and 2.2 million ounces of inferred, and copper mineral resources with 971 million pounds of indicated and 821 million pounds of inferred. Doubled 2025 exploration guidance at Kemess to between $10 million and $12 million with 28,500 meters of drilling planned. PEA on Kemess expected to be completed by the end of the year.
• Share Buybacks: Board approved repurchase of up to $75 million of Centerra's shares in 2025.
• Thompson Creek: Spent $55 million on restart since September 2024, with ~14% of total capital investment completed.
• Sustainability: Submitted an amended application for operating permits at Mount Milligan; working on the 2024 sustainability report.

Mount Milligan: In the first quarter, it produced over 35,800 ounces of payable gold and 11.6 million pounds of payable copper, though lower than planned due to lower grades. All-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,168 per ounce, 5% higher than the last quarter. Production and sales are weighted towards the second half of the year. Öksüt: First quarter production was 23,500 ounces lower than planned due to lower grades and unfavorable weather conditions. All-in sustaining costs on a byproduct basis were $1,563 per ounce, higher compared to last quarter. Molybdenum (Langeloth): In the first quarter, approximately 4.2 million pounds of molybdenum was sold at an average realized price of $21.59 per pound.

• 2025 production guidance remains unchanged with a strong second half expected driven by increasing grades.
• Mount Milligan PFS results expected in the third quarter of 2025.
• Kemess PEA expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
• Board approved up to $75 million of share buybacks in 2025.

• Impact of U.S. tariffs: Assessing potential impact on Langeloth, but no material impact currently anticipated at the Centerra level.
• Tariffs on molybdenum: 60% of molybdenum feed at Langeloth comes from South America and is subject to tariffs; looking at mitigation strategies.

Q: Thank you, operator and good morning, Paul and team. Congratulations on the quarter and moving forward with the Kemess PEA. So, with the shift in mining method to long haul open stoping from block caving, is it too early to provide any magnitude of development CapEx at this point or put another way, would you expect potential development of Kemess to be internally funded?

A: Hey, Don. If I refer back to the Kemess cross-section... Your question on being able to fund this project, this is fundamentally, it's a pretty -- we got some pictures in the press release, but we've got a mill, we've got a camp, we've got a lot of existing infrastructure in place, which would significantly derisk the way we would look at CapEx investment here... It is our intent to fund all of our development projects with existing and future liquidity. We don't expect to have to access either equity or debt markets to be able to fund our project pipeline.

Q: Thank you, operator and hello, Paul and team. Thank you for taking my question and thanks for today's update. When you think about capital allocation now with Kemess in that pipeline, does that deprioritize the need to potentially acquire a new gold project?

A: Good morning, Lawson. Yes. that's a good question. What we like about Kemess is that some of the attributes I listed here, it's built infrastructure, it's a brownfield site. A lot of the permits are in place. We have relations with local First Nations there. And so, when we look at potential M&A, we compare things against that which we have in the portfolio namely, Kemess. And what we find is that Kemess stacks up quite nicely against potential acquisitions. And certainly, when you load in the acquisition cost that in fact Kemess appears to screen very highly against potential acquisition. So yes, I think where you're leading is, does this lessen the need for M&A? And the answer is yes, definitely.

Q: Thank you, operator. Good morning, Paul and team. I've got three questions, go one at a time, if that's okay. First up on your operational outlook for the year, how comfortable -- and probably David can come in here -- are you with the flexibility you have in the operation? So, there has been few quarters we have seen some variability. Are you at a position, where you are happy with the amount of grid control drilling you have done and you have visibility or are you behind on that production drilling, if you can give some color on that?

A: Yes, good question. So, we're not changing guidance on production. And as I said in my prepared remarks, we expect better grades at both Öksüt and Milligan. But Dave, this is a good opportunity to talk about what we're doing at Milligan on grade... Hi, Raj. Nice to meet you here today. So, at Mount Milligan, we've started a program to do some pretty extensive, call it, mid-term model RC drilling. So, it will really do a large portion of drilling out the next 18 months to take our short-term model, more to a mid-term model and then be able to compare that to our long-term numbers that are there... Öksüt, everything is projecting towards better grades in the second half of the year. It's part of what's in the current mine plan and everything else, and I don't see any reasons at this point in time. we would not achieve the guidance numbers by year end at Öksüt.

Q: Thanks, operator. Thanks, Paul and team for taking my questions. Most of them have been answered. So, I have one remaining and that's on Kemess. Could you provide an update on what's been going on the community relations front at Chemist? And my understanding is that part of the historic decision to move to block cave was due to an improvement to open pits in the region. And I was hoping you could speak specifically to that and what gives you confidence that the open pit is something that nearby community would be open to?

A: Okay, great question, Jeremy. The old open pit concept to which you're referring to was a giant open pit that took out the entire block cave and then some. So, what we're contemplating here is a significantly smaller open pit. And the challenge at that time would have been that the size of that open pit and the tailings requirement associated with the amount of material that would have been processed would have caused a significant disturbance to nearby water bodies. And that is what in effect led to opposition and a no-go in the big open pit. What we're looking at here is a subset. We have a component that's underground and the tailings that we're looking at here would go into a combination of the pit, the old Northgate pit, which is permitted to receive tailings, as well as remaining capacity in the existing tailings dam. So, our project concept here, its tailings fit within that envelope I just described and would not require more disturbance and the combination of the very large open pit and impacts on local water bodies are what caused the problem the first time in that giant open pit that you referred to. So, it's a much more modest scope. And you were asking about the relationship with communities. We do have an IBA in place at Kemess and we maintain very good relations with the local community there and we will continue to engage in dialogue with them.