Livengood Gold Project PFS: $1.93B Capex Over a 21-Year Mine Life
International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.'s Livengood Gold Project in USA, Alaska (near Fairbanks) has a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) outlining initial capital of $1.93B. The mine plan runs 21 years at about 388600 oz Au (first 5 years avg) per year.
International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.'s Livengood Gold Project has reported Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) results for the gold (potential antimony by-product) project in USA, Alaska (near Fairbanks). It reflects International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.'s (ITH.TO) latest disclosed economics for the asset.
Economics. Initial capital expenditure is estimated at $1.93B. All-in sustaining costs are pegged at 1171 USD/oz. Economics are based on Reserves calculated at $1,680/oz gold; M&I Resources at $1,650/oz; PFS completed at $1,680/oz gold.
Production and mine plan. The project envisions an open-pit operation. Life of mine is 21 years. Average annual production is approximately 388600 oz Au (first 5 years avg). Average head grade is 0.65 g/t Au (reserves); 0.60 g/t (resources). The open-pit strip ratio is 1.2:1.
Resources and ownership. Royalties and streams: 3% royalty; smelting, refining and transportation costs of $1.80/oz; gold payable of 99.9%.
These figures are extracted from International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.'s technical disclosures and reflect the most recent PFS on file. Compare this project against other developers and producers in our project economics database, and always verify the numbers against the original technical report before making any investment decision.
Reserves & Resources
| Category | Tonnage | Grade | Contained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proven & Probable | 430M tonnes | 0.65 g/t | 9.0M oz |
| Category | Tonnage | Grade | Contained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured & Indicated | 705M tonnes | 0.60 g/t | 13.6M oz |
Our Analysis
- Initial capex
- $1.93B
costlier than 92% of 421 projects we track
- Mine life
- 21yrs
- Study price assumption
- Reserves calculated at $1,680/oz gold; M&I Resources at $1,650/oz; PFS completed at $1,680/oz gold
- Spot gold today
- $4,432.00/oz
The financing question is the project. The initial build cost of $1.93B stands against a US$716M market cap, meaning this build is roughly two and a half times the entire value of the company. That is not a funding gap a small-cap closes quietly; it is a transaction that redefines the shareholder register. The realistic cheque writers are a strategic gold major, a streaming or royalty partner, or a consortium of lenders and off-takers, and each path implies meaningful dilution or a substantial loss of project-level economics for current holders. The headline return is the supporting act; the terms of that capital raise are the plot.
The study itself is a PFS, which narrows the estimate to roughly a plus or minus 25% band, but it is not a build decision. That matters because the economics are being tested against a price deck that is now far behind the market. Reserves were calculated at $1,680/oz gold, and the PFS was completed at that same level, while today's spot is $4,432.00/oz. The project is being financed and valued on a gold price that is a fraction of the current market. That gap cuts both ways: it suggests the returns are likely understated at current prices, but it also means the project's viability, and any financing terms, will be renegotiated in a very different commodity environment than the study modeled.
The jurisdiction, Alaska near Fairbanks, is a developed mining region, which helps on the permitting front, but the project remains Early Development and Pre-Permit with a 21-year mine life. The single question that decides whether this works is not the grade or the return; it is whether the company can secure $1.93B in funding without surrendering so much of the project, through equity dilution or streaming deals, that existing holders are left with a minority stake in an asset they already own.
Our take, benchmarked against the project economics in the Mining Stocks database. Figures are estimates drawn from company technical reports — not investment advice; always verify against the source filing.