GRMC Goldrich Mining Company (CE)

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Map 2 – Chandalar Mining Claim Block

Geographically, our Chandalar property is situated in rugged terrain just within the south flank of the Brooks Range where elevations range from 1,900 feet in the lower valleys to just over 5,000 feet on the surrounding mountain peaks. The region has undergone glaciation due to multiple ice advances originating from the north and, while no glacial ice remains, the surficial land features of the area reflect abundant evidence of past glaciation.

The property is characterized by deeply incised creek valleys that are actively down-cutting the terrain. The steep hill slopes are shingled with frost-fractured slabby slide rock, which is the product of arctic climate mass wasting and erosion. Consequently, bedrock exposure is mostly limited to ridge crests and a few locations in creek bottoms. Vegetation is limited to the peripheral areas at lower elevations where there are relatively continuous spruce forests in the larger river valleys. The higher elevations are characterized by arctic tundra.

Snow melt generally occurs toward the end of May, followed by an intensive, though short, 90-day growing season with 24 hours of daylight and daytime temperatures that range from 60 to 80° Fahrenheit. Freezing temperatures return in late August and freeze-up typically occurs by early October. Winter temperatures, particularly in the lower elevations, can drop to -50° F or colder for extended periods. Annual precipitation is 15 to 20 inches, coming mostly in late summer as rain and during the first half of the winter as snow. Winter snow accumulations are modest. The area is essentially an arctic desert.

23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Map 3 – Gold Prospects and Geologic Structure of Chandalar

Chandalar Mining Claims

We have a block of contiguous mining claims at Chandalar that cover a net area of about 22,858 acres (approximately 35.7 square miles) (Map 2), and which are maintained by us specifically for the exploration and possible exploitation of placer and lode gold deposits. The mining claims were located to secure most of the known gold bearing zones occurring within an area approximately five miles by eight miles. Within the claim block, we own in fee simple 426.5 acres as twenty-one federal lode claims, one patented federal placer claim, and one patented federal mill site. The 23 federal patented claims cover the most important of the known gold-bearing structures. In addition, there are 197 Traditional and MTRSC 40-acre State of Alaska claims. The 197 Traditional and MTRSC state mining claims provide exploration and mining rights to both lode and placer mineral deposits on an additional 22,432 acres of unpatented claims. Unlike federal mining claims, State of Alaska mining claims cannot be patented, but the locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals in or on the claim.

Alaska state unpatented mining claims are unique property interests in that they are subject to the paramount title of the State of Alaska, and rights of third parties to non-interfering uses of the surface within their boundaries, and are generally considered to be subject to greater title risk than other real property interests. There are few public records that definitively determine the issues of validity and ownership of unpatented state mining claims and possible conflicts with other claims are not always determinable from the descriptions contained in public records. The rights to deposits of minerals lying within the boundaries of the unpatented state claims are subject to Alaska Statues 38.05.185 – 38.05.280, and are governed by Alaska Administrative Code 11 AAC 86.100 – 86.600.

The validity of an Alaska state unpatented mining claim depends on: (1) the claim having been located on state land open to appropriation by mineral location, which is the act of physically going on the land and making a claim by putting stakes in the ground; (2) compliance with all applicable state statutes in terms of the contents of claim location notices or certificates and the timely filing and recording of the same; (3) timely payment of annual claim rental fees; and (4) the timely filing and recording of proof of annual assessment work. In the absence of a discovery of valuable

24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

minerals, the ground covered by an unpatented mining claim is open to location by others unless the owner is in actual possession of and diligently working the claim. We are diligently working and are in actual possession of all our claims at Chandalar.

The locator of a mining claim on land belonging to the State of Alaska does not have an option to patent the claim. Instead, rights to deposits of minerals on Alaska state land that is open to claim staking may be acquired by discovery, location and recording as prescribed in Alaska state statutes, as previously noted. The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals in or on the claim, subject to state statutes governing mining claims. We are not in default of any annual assessment work filing or annual claim rental payment required by the state of Alaska to keep our title to the mining rights at Chandalar in good standing.

An important part of our Chandalar property is patented federal mining claims owned by us. Patented mining claims, which are real property interests that are owned in fee simple, are subject to less risk than unpatented mining claims. We have done a title chain search of our patented federal mining claims and believe we are the owner of the private property, and that the property is free and clear of liens and other third-party claims except for the 2% mineral production royalty. The 2% mineral production royalty was formerly held by our previous management (Anderson Partnership, also known as Jumbo Basin). During 2012, NyacAU loaned $250,000 to GNP and GNP purchased the royalty from Anderson Partnership. The loan to GNP for the royalty carried interest at the greater of prime plus 2% or 10% and was repaid from Goldrich’s portion of production (as defined in the joint venture agreement). The royalty was extinguished when Goldrich paid back the loan.

Concerning the unpatented state claims in 2020, we timely paid the annual rent and filed the annual affidavit of annual labor with the Alaska Department of Resources (“DNR”) for the Company’s claims, but in February 2021, the DNR sent a preliminary abandonment notice concerning 32 of our claims. One of the pages of our annual affidavit was not recorded by the DNR and the DNR assumes it was because we had not included the missing page. We filed for and received a certificate of substantial compliance on March 15, 2021 to prevent any third-party from staking the claims in the future, but any third-party who staked claims before March 15, 2021 has 45 days after that date to attempt to perfect their claim(s). We would most likely contest any such claim(s) by a third-party.

The Company entered into an Amended and Restated Loan Security and Intercreditor Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Nicholas Gallagher (“Gallagher”), a related party and member of the Company’s Board of Directors, in his capacity as Agent for and on behalf of Gallagher and other lenders to amend the Senior Secured Note financing effective as of November 1, 2019. Under the Agreement, the borrower and holders entered into a Deed of Trust whereunder the Notes are secured by a security interest in all real property, claims, contracts, agreements, leases, permits and similar assets. For more information see Notes Payable and Notes Payable – Related Party below.

Chandalar Geology and Mineralization

Refer to Maps 3 and 4 for graphic representation of both the hard-rock prospects and alluvial fans on which we are focusing varying degrees of exploration effort, as determined by exploration activities already completed in prior years.

The Chandalar lode occurrences are part of a regionally mineralized schist belt that extends east-west across the 600-mile width of Alaska along the south flank of the Brooks Range. The geology and mineralization of the Chandalar lode gold systems are quite similar to many important productive gold deposits that have been variously categorized as greenstone-hosted, orogenic, shear-zone related, low-sulfide, mesothermal, amongst other names and which, collectively, account for a major part of the world’s gold production. Although there is a history of past lode and alluvial extraction on our Chandalar property, it currently does not contain any known proven or probable ore reserves as defined in SEC Industry Guide 7. The probability that ore reserves that meet SEC Industry Guide 7 guidelines will be discovered on an individual hard rock prospect at Chandalar cannot be determined at this time. We have however commissioned an independent engineering firm to complete a mining plan and initial assessment for the Company’s Chandalar placer mine, according to the new amendments adopted by the SEC to modernize the property disclosure requirements for mining registrants. The new disclosure requirements will replace the SEC Industry Guide 7 and mining registrants are required to follow them beginning in 2021. The new disclosure requirements will allow Goldrich to disclose inferred, indicated and measured resources. Subject to the findings of the initial assessment,

25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Goldrich will decide if a preliminary feasibility study should also be prepared for the Chandalar Mine.  A preliminary feasibility study would allow Goldrich to disclose any reserves of the Chandalar Mine.

Infrastructure

We have established a substantial exploration infrastructure at our Chandalar property, including a 25-person camp, heavy and light-duty equipment, a 5,000-foot airstrip, and a network of roads that offer all-weather access to all of the major gold prospects. Current surface access to the camp from the Dalton Highway is restricted to the winter months via a winter trail from Coldfoot along the Dalton Highway. The State of Alaska has a right-of-way to construct a permanent all-season road along this trail which, when built, will allow year-around surface access to the project site. We are not aware of any plans to build this road at the present time.

Historical Mining and Exploration Activities in the Modern Era

We maintain an extensive file of the prospecting and exploration of the Chandalar Mining district, cataloging documents dated as early as 1904. Most of the previous work was by mining companies and individuals who were focused on mining the gold placers and quartz veins but who conducted little organized geologically based exploration. Even less attention was given beyond existing vein exposures.

When new management began exploration in 2004, we ended a twenty-year hiatus of hard-rock exploration on the property and began employing modern exploration techniques. We have spent many millions of dollars in exploration and mining activities of our Chandalar property as discussed below.

2004

In 2004, we contracted an independent geological consulting company to review and analyze previous work done on Chandalar. A technical report produced by the consultants recommended an initial exploration program to better assess the gold lodes and the placer gold deposits.

We also commissioned a remote sensing technical study of the Chandalar district by another independent contractor who studied high altitude air photography available for the region. The purpose of the study was to identify geological structures that may be associated with gold occurrences in a schist belt containing greenstones. The lineament study identified fifty-nine sites thought to be favorable for discovery of mineralization. Major linears, especially where they may form a regional rift, are an excellent exploration tool in the search for gold. The consultant recommended making field examinations of known gold occurrences associated with the linears and other structural features identified by the study.

During the 2004 summer field season at Chandalar, using independent certified professional geologists, we followed up on the work recommended by the remote sensing consultant’s studies. We also expanded our claim block to cover outlying vein showings and reconnaissance sampling of rocks, soils and stream sediments for geochemical analyses. The objective of the field program was to assess the validity of historic records, refine known drilling targets and identify new drilling targets. Several prospects of previously unevaluated or unknown gold mineralization were found.

2005

During 2005, we completed a modest prospecting and geologic mapping program at Chandalar, which was limited by our lack of funds. In all, 189 exploratory samples of stream sediments, soils and rock chips were taken, and mapping was completed on a series of ten prospects. That work was successful in identifying additional gold prospects within our claim block, and also in developing specific drilling targets on several of the prospects.

2006

During early 2006, we acquired sufficient funds to undertake a substantial exploration program on the Chandalar property. During the 2006 summer field season, a geological contractor completed a 1:20,000 scale geologic map of the Chandalar district, and we drilled 39 reverse circulation drill holes for 7,763 feet on nine of some thirty gold prospects within our Chandalar claim block. In the process, several miles of old roads were repaired and three miles of new roads were constructed. We established an exploration base camp (Mello Bench camp) capable of housing 20 people, and accomplished environmental clean ups of two abandoned mining campsites that predate our management

26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

takeover in 2003.

2007

Concerning hard-rock exploration, the 2007 Chandalar exploration program expanded our understanding of several hard-rock gold prospects through trenching and associated sampling. In all, forty prospect areas were mapped in detail and 1,342 samples of rock (including trench and placer drill holes to bedrock) and soil were collected and analyzed. Forty-five trenches for 5,927 feet were accomplished using an excavator, of which 4,954 feet cut into bedrock and were sampled. Some 534 trench samples were taken continuously along the lengths of all trenches. Additionally, ground magnetic surveys on fifteen of the prospects were conducted with survey lines totaling 28 miles.

Concerning placer exploration, we conducted 15,000 feet (4,572 meters) of reverse circulation drilling on the Little Squaw Creek drainage. Of 107 holes collared, 87 were completed to their targeted depths. We engaged an independent geological contractor to conduct all sampling in our drilling program, complete all drill sample gold recovery, evaluate ore, maintain drill sample security and report the results of their work.

2008

The analytical processing of the 3,031 drill samples and report on the final results of the samples gold contents from our 2007 placer drill program was completed by March of 2008. From these results, we concluded that we discovered a relatively large alluvial gold deposit of sufficient grade to be potentially economical to mine under prevailing gold prices. This drill program delineated approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of mineralized material at an average grade of 0.025 ounces (0.78 grams) gold per cubic yard containing an estimated 250,000 ounces of gold (This mineralized material is not a mineral reserve as defined in SEC Industry Guide 7). We believe that with continued drilling, the mineralized body may be substantially increased.

The deposit is geologically characterized as an aggradational placer gold deposit. It is unusual in the sense that it is the only such known alluvial, or placer, gold deposit in Alaska, although many exist in Siberia. Our discovery contrasts to others in Alaska that are commonly known as bedrock placer gold deposits. Aggradational alluvial gold deposits contain gold particles disseminated through thick sections of unconsolidated stream gravels in contrast to bedrock placer deposits where thin but rich gold-bearing gravel pay streaks rest directly on bedrock surfaces. Aggradational placer gold deposits are generally more uniform and thus more conducive to bulk mining techniques incorporating economies of scale. This contrasts with bedrock placer gold deposits where gold distribution tends to be erratic and highly variable. The plan view of our discovery is somewhat funnel-shaped, and as such has been divided into two distinct geomorphological zones: a Gulch, or narrower channel portion, and a Fan, or broad alluvial apron portion.

2009

We began a placer gold test mining operation on Little Squaw Creek. We also started to execute on the recommended plan in April 15, 2009 technical report prepared by an independent consultant. Some exploration of the various other placer gold creeks on the Chandalar property took place. Prospecting work on the hard-rock gold deposit possibilities was also accomplished. That work led to some key understandings of the geology. The work also resulted in the generation of an internal Company memorandum by Mr. Barker proposing an exploratory diamond-core drill program of about 40 drill holes aggregating 20,000 feet. The proposed drill program would evaluate the degree of mineralization occurring as a large strata-bound unit nearly 5 miles in length, as explained in the report Interpretation of Exploratory Findings at Chandalar.

In the 2009 test mining operation, we accomplished a major step in assessing the economic potential of this mineralized body. Most importantly, we found that the mineralized material is a continuous but variably mineralized horizon. There are specific horizons within it that are up to 20 feet thick containing the richest gold grades. The mineralized material is about forty percent composed of gravel, cobbles and boulders set in a sixty percent matrix of fine silt. It is nicely compacted and stands well when opened up. Because of the high silt content, the mineralized material, and the overburden as well, expands by over forty percent in volume when it is mined and converted into loose cubic yards. During 2009 mining test, we stripped approximately 40,000 bank cubic yards of waste material and processed about 9,875 bank cubic yards of gold bearing gravels through our wash plant. About 593.5 ounces of alluvial gold were recovered which, when smelted, yielded 497.5 ounces of fine gold.

27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The 2009 alluvial gold test mining operation successfully yielded valuable geological, mining and engineering data that lead us to the decision to ramp-up the project into gold extraction in the spring of 2010.

2010

During the winter of 2009/2010, we raised additional funds to ramp-up the Little Squaw Creek Gold Mine into extraction. The ramp-up process involved substantial infrastructure upgrades, including building a new 30-man mining camp located about two miles from the exploration camp that had been in use since 2004. Infrastructure and mining development at the Little Squaw Creek alluvial gold mine was initiated in late May 2010, with the first gold extraction being delivered to a smelter-refinery on July 15, 2010.

The 2010 gold extraction was limited by the lack of capital to get a second wash plant on line. The 2009 wash plant was re-modeled with improvements (primarily an enlarged hopper with a wet grizzly style in-feed) and put on line for the 2010 extraction. Unfortunately, the plant turned out to be capable of processing only about 29 bank cubic yards per hour on a consistent basis. Attempts at higher processing rates led to overloading the machine and frequent break downs. The plant ran for 1,094 hours, extracting at an average rate of about 1.45 ounces of fine gold per hour.

While there were no drill holes within 400 feet of the perimeter of the 2009 test pit, there was mineralized material exposed in three walls of the pit which encouraged management’s decision to expand the mine by following the mineralized material, using in-pit grade control, and mining material to the physical and economic extent possible. No estimate of metallurgical recovery balances could be made regarding the mined mineralized material in 2010 for lack of sufficient prior data about the gold content in the block of ground that was mined. The gold recovery performance of the plant was checked on a consistent basis by panning its tailings. No significant gold was ever found in the tailings, leading management to conclude that the wash plant, albeit undersized for the job, was working properly.

The mining operation ultimately involved stripping an estimated 131,000 bank cubic yards of waste material and the mining and processing of about 31,680 bank cubic yards of gold bearing gravels. During the 2010 extraction season, 1,503 ounces of fine gold and 259 ounces of silver were recovered at the refinery. Additionally, 24.1 ounces of gold nuggets estimated to contain 19.2 ounces of fine gold were extracted and either sold to jewelers or retained by the Company. Our gross precious metal sales in 2010 came to $1,904,124.

Map 4 - Chandalar Exploratory Gold Deposit Drill Target with Holes Proposed in 2009 and Drilled in 2011

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2011

Our 2011 hard-rock drilling plan was extrapolated from a 2007 exploration plan that was not undertaken previously due to financial limitations. Independent third-party professionals analyzed the 2006 hard-rock rotary drill results and the surface exploration work performed in intervening years and recommended prioritized hard-rock drill targets for the 2011 exploration season. The 2011 exploration program included a diamond-core drilling exploration program on a series of hard-rock gold targets on our Chandalar claims. These targets contain numerous gold showings which we believed were the source areas of the alluvial gold deposits in the creek drainages. We believe we have accumulated a body of knowledge on the Chandalar claims which points us toward significant areas of interest for discovery of very large tonnages of mineralization, and our drilling program has been designed to further qualify those targets for potential commercialization.

We completed our 2011 diamond core drilling campaign at Chandalar, Alaska along with a property-wide, grid-based soil sampling and a detailed airborne magnetometer survey. We completed a 25-hole, 4,404-meter (14,444-foot) exploratory program, using HQ size core, tested six prospect areas located along a 4-km (2.5-mile) long northeast trending belt of gold showings. The drilling contractor completed the last hole on September 30, 2011.

The HQ diameter diamond drill holes were generally sampled using a five-foot sample length and overall core recovery averaged greater than 90%. Six quality control samples (one blank and five standards) were inserted into each batch of 120 samples. The drill core was sawn, with half sent to the ALS Minerals sample preparation in Fairbanks, Alaska, where the samples were prepared for assay and then sent to the ALS Minerals Lab in Sparks, Nevada for analyses. Gold was analyzed by fire assay and Atomic Absorption Spectrometry finish and a four-acid sample digestion with Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry method was used to analyze a full suite of elements. Samples were securely transported from the project site to the ALS Minerals preparation laboratory in Fairbanks via chartered aircraft hired by the Company.

Donald G. Strachan, Certified Professional Geologist and Goldrich’s contracted project manager for Chandalar, managed the drill program and confirmed that all procedures, protocols and methodologies used in the drill program conform to industry standards.

The results of this first diamond core exploration drilling on our Chandalar gold property have exposed what we believe is a wide-spread system of gold mineralization at intervals from surface to depths of up to 120 meters (about 400 feet). We also believe the mass of rock affected by the mineralizing system to be large, as more than 50 gold showings are scattered over about six square miles (fifteen square kilometers), only a fraction of which has yet been drill-tested. The drill cores contain a total of 56 mineralized intervals of 0.5 or greater grams per tonne gold (g/t Au) that average 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) in length and have a weighted average grade of 1.66 g/t Au. Gold-bearing intercepts were obtained in 72% of the holes, with many having multiple intercepts.

Drilling results draw us to focus on two prospects – Aurora and Rock Glacier – which we believe are geologically associated and related to the same controlling mineralizing features. Intercepts include:

·1.5 meters (5.0 feet) at 6.57 g/t Au in Hole LS11-0063 on the Aurora prospect; 

·2.1 meters (7.0 feet) at 6.02 g/t Au in Hole LS11-0041 on Rock Glacier 

A map and tables showing drill hole locations, drill depths, data and intercepts can be found in our annual reports filed with the SEC for 2011 and 2012.

These and other intercepts are associated with much longer core runs of strongly anomalous gold (> 0.10 g/t Au) between 4.3 meters (14 feet) and 21.3 meters (70 feet) in length. Also worth noting, while constructing a road to a proposed drill site, we encountered two zones of shearing with sheeted and stockwork quartz veinlets, approximately 5 meters (16 feet) and 15 meters (49 feet) wide. These zones are located 135 meters vertically above and 200 meters southwest of Aurora drill holes #61 to #64. Representative continuous chip sampling of these zones yielded assays of 2.8 g/t gold and 2.1 g/t gold, respectively. We believe the mineralized Aurora drill hole intercepts may represent an extension of these zones and that additional drilling could extend these zones even further.

29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

While the silver (Ag) values associated with these and most of the other gold intercepts are generally less than 2 g/t, unusually, native silver is observed in one core interval of 0.46 meters (1.5 feet) from 80.01 meters (262.5 feet) to 80.47 meters (264.0 feet) in Hole LS11-0042, which assays greater than 690 g/t Ag (> 20.1 oz/st Ag [st = short ton]) with only a trace of gold. A second curious silver rich interval occurs in Hole LS11-0040 for 2.1 meters (7.0 feet) from 23.47 meters (77.0 feet) to 25.60 meters (84.0 feet), which returned 397 g/t (11.6 oz/st Ag), again accompanied with only a trace of gold. We believe this silver mineralization may represent a separate mineralizing event within a large and complex precious metal bearing mineral system.

Chandalar’s wide-spread precious metal system is hosted by carbonaceous, pyrrhotite-arsenopyrite-pyrite bearing schist. Significantly, extensive intercepts of hydrothermal alteration manifested by massive chloritization and strong silicification of the schist are associated with the mineralization, and are often geochemically anomalous (> 0.05 g/t) in gold as well. Mineralized intercepts have now been intersected by drilling over a vertical elevation difference of 550 meters (1,800 feet), with the lowest exposure being in the northeast at the Aurora prospect which is close to the Little Squaw alluvial gold deposit.

Additional core drilling is necessary to assess the continuity and extent of outcropping and any projection from the gold-mineralized intercepts as well as determine the limits of the mineralizing system. In addition to drilling, the 2011 Chandalar gold exploration program included a grid soil sampling survey consisting of 1,150 samples for multi-element analyses.

The soil sampling, prioritized to first cover known mineralized trends, consisted of over 1,100 samples collected on a reconnaissance scale grid over approximately 65 percent of the 22,858-acre Chandalar property. In the airborne geophysical survey, approximately 750 line miles (1,246 line kilometers) were flown by an international geophysical contractor over the entire Chandalar property along flight lines 100 meters apart.

The 2011 exploration season was successful in significantly expanding our existing body of geological knowledge about our Chandalar property. The combination of core, soil and magnetic data is expected to provide a solid foundation for going forward with a thorough exploration and evaluation of the numerous gold occurrences on the property.

2012

As described below in Joint Venture Agreement, we signed an agreement with NyacAU to form a joint venture, Goldrich NyacAU Placer, LLC (“GNP”) for the purpose of mining the alluvial gold deposits within the bounds of our Chandalar property.

2013

Achievements included GNP’s mobilization of drilling equipment and plant setup, approval of permits to expand mining operations, significant infrastructure improvements and extraction of 680 ounces of fine gold.

2014

In 2014, we completed advanced petrographic studies of drill core samples from the Chandalar gold property. The new data refined the orogenic model that has historically guided exploration at Chandalar and redirected our future exploration for intrusion-related mineralization. We also conducted a property-wide airborne radiometric and magnetic survey to generate and further refine exploration targets for bulk-tonnage low-grade mineralization and possible deeper sources of intrusion-related mineralization.

Our geologists concurred the studies are important for exploration as the pegmatite textures in outcrop and drilling and the radiogenic activity from accessory minerals associated with pegmatite-veins may indicate proximity to intrusive-related mineralization and may provide us a highly useful tool for gold mineralization discovery.

The petrologic study involved detailed microprobe examination of samples taken from veins in the Chandalar gold system that exhibit characteristics of pegmatite, an igneous rock deposited during emplacement of a granitic intrusive body. All of the samples contain numerous accessory minerals that commonly derive from magma or late-stage magmatic fluids, including monazite, thorite and xenotime. Some of the accessory minerals co-precipitated with gold,

30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

indicating that late intrusive stage hydrothermal fluids migrated upward along shear zones within which the lode gold mineralization is emplaced. Importantly, radiogenic activity is associated with the accessory mineral suite.

We believe rigorous follow-up rock sampling and radiogenic surveys may result in more effective selection of high-priority drill sites, an important factor considering the expansive size of the Chandalar system.

In August 2014, we engaged a contractor and geologists to perform additional airborne magnetic and radiometric studies across the entire Chandalar property. An airborne radiometric and magnetic survey was conducted to test an intrusion-related model for emplacement of lode quartz-gold occurrences. Results of the airborne study demonstrate a broad northwest-trending belt of elevated potassium values with a centrally located, kilometer-scale feature where thorium values are elevated relative to potassium. The potassium/thorium feature anomaly is closely associated with magnetic anomalies to form a circular kilometer-scale feature in the highlands above and adjacent to the Goldrich-NYAC Placer operation consistent with an intrusive body at depth and is central to the northeast-trend of lode quartz-gold occurrences.

The data obtained from these studies will be compiled with data already derived from sampling, trenching, drilling and geophysical testing to present a comprehensive 3D model of the Chandalar prospects and their geological setting. The results of these studies will assist us in determining methods and targets for exploration.

2015

We completed reclamation of mine waste road built in 2010 and received a confirmation of completion and satisfaction from the Army Corps of Engineers. GNP extracted approximately 3,600 ounces of fine gold.

2016

GNP extracted approximately 8,200 ounces of fine gold.

2017

We performed additional oxygen isotope studies to further confirm intrusion-related mineralization. In addition, GNP completed a sonic drill program and drilled 231 holes totaling 14,271 feet to further define the Chandalar placer deposit and extracted approximately 12,300 ounces of fine gold.

2018

GNP extracted approximately 17,100 ounces of fine gold.

2019

Due to the failure of the joint venture to meet the minimum production requirements under its Operating Agreement, GNP was dissolved in June 2019 and is in the process of liquidation (see Joint Venture Agreement and Arbitration below). Except for equipment needed for reclamation, most the heavy equipment and the wash plant were removed on a winter trail in March through mid-April 2019.  There was no gold production in 2019.  NyacAU is the holder of the mine permits and began reclamation of the mine in 2019.  NyacAU is responsible for future reclamation costs.  Goldrich hired an independent mining engineering firm in 2019 year to formulate a mine plan and complete an Initial Assessment to determine if Goldrich should resume production.  Any plan to continue future mining is contingent upon our success in raising sufficient capital to fund these activities or any portion of them.

2020

No mining or exploration activities were conducted. We continued our work with the independent mining engineering firm to formulate a mining plan for conducting a future mining operation. Management focus was also directed to moving the arbitration process toward conclusion.

Planned 2021 Exploration and Mining Activities

In 2021, we anticipate the completion of a mining plan and initial assessment for the Company’s Chandalar placer mine by an independent mining engineering firm, according to the new amendments in Subpart 1300. In 2021, subject to obtaining financing, we do not anticipate conducting hard-rock exploration drilling activities and other hard-rock

31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

exploration activities at the Chandalar property. We will once again undertake such activities if and when our financial situation permits.

Interpretation of Exploratory Findings at Chandalar

Since the 2011 diamond drill coring program, continued processing of prospecting information along with compilation of geophysical survey data, core re-logging and an associated stream of petrographic studies (relevantly referenced to 2014 activities presented above) has resulted in the re-thinking of the geologic model guiding the Chandalar gold exploration program. That model started with a preliminary theory derived from the available evidence of the time that the Chandalar gold mineralization was likely a stratabound indigenous feature of the Mikado phyllite/schist photoliths (parent rocks), enhanced by compressional mountain building activity (orogenesis). That theory has now largely been discarded as evidence builds that the gold mineralization is related to a magmatic-hydrothermal alteration system driven by an underlying pluton (a body of intrusive igneous rock).

There are more than 50 bedrock gold showings are contained in a North-Easterly (“NE”) trending zone about 3 km (2 miles) wide and 6 km (4 miles) long. The host rock formation of this distinct zone is mainly pyrrhotitic (magnetic iron sulfide) schist. These prospects are generally associated with the presence of North-Westerly (“NW”) fault zones where they transgress the NE zone of prospects. The numerous gold mineralized prospects can be grouped into three distinct populations: A - massive quartz veins, B - shear and fault gouge zones, and C – dikelets of pegmatite (coarsely crystalline igneous rock). Group A are invariably NW striking, repeatedly sheared and boudinized (segmented like a string of sausages) massive quartz veins containing gold, lead, zinc and arsenic sulfide minerals. Group B, also NW striking, are encased in heavily chloritized host schist, contain crushed or pulverized quartz vein and/or dikelet material, all of which have disseminated arsenopyrite with free-milling gold in them. Group C are intensely hydrothermally altered pegmatite dikelets (generally 5 to 50 cm thick) consisting mostly of secondary clay minerals (after original feldspars, micas and other minerals) mixed with iron carbonates (siderite) and by-product or remnant quartz, all of which have some degree of gold and arsenic mineralization, sometimes also with lead and zinc.

The mapped (surface and drill holes) distribution of the different Groups reflects a general zoning pattern of the gold-mineralized magmatic-hydrothermal alteration system. Group A appears to be the result of lower temperature crystallization and deposition which is peripheral to the massively chloritized sheared schist host rocks of Group B and furthermore to what appear to be swarms of hydrothermally altered pegmatitic dikelets of Group C recorded in some of the drilling. It is important to note the altered gold-bearing dikelets are so soft with pervasive clays they rarely survive weathering erosion to form outcrops, which makes it very difficult to determine their distribution, except as noted in drill intercepts. As explained in the 2014 project activities discussion above, these dikelets contain high-temperature accessory minerals and other minerals which give radiometric responses that help identify their aggregated location. Notably, the dikelets intercepted in the drill holes are usually seen to be intruding and/or replacing schist host rock and are not usually in rock faults, although fault zones may be nearby.

The dikelets of Group C are almost certainly the offspring of larger but hidden intrusive igneous bodies yet to be discovered. The metamorphic grade of the region appears to never have been high enough to melt the indigenous rock, and it is also doubtful it could have produced the selective types of rock alterations now recognized. Since virtually all those of Group C exposed by drilling are mineralized to some degree with gold, geologists servicing the Company clearly believe a parent pluton will also be mineralized, most likely as disseminations, fracture fillings or quartz stockworks within its cupola (roof pendant) where fractionated hydrothermal fluids pregnant with gold would crystalize. Such a deposit of gold mineralization is considered by the Company to be an inspiring exploration target as it could host millions of ounces of gold at economically mineable grades as other intrusive-related gold deposits around the world do.

The Company’s geologists have compiled and analyzed all available geophysical, geochemical, and geological technical data with the objective of identifying the best spots to proceed with exploratory drilling. The most useful component in the data portfolio is the record of the number and intensity of dikelet intercepts in each drill hole. This is found to be most pronounced in the lowest 62-meter (203 ft.) interval of diamond drill core hole LS 11-0060 drilled at -55° for 263 meters (863 ft.). This drill hole hit a vertical section of a gold bearing dikelet swarm for some 50 meters (164 ft.) and terminated within it at a vertical depth of 180 meters below the surface cover of the Rock Glacier prospect. There are no other drill tests of this location. Combined with other supporting technical data (such as the

32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

250,000-ounce Little Squaw Creek gold placer deposit (this deposit is not a SEC Industry Guide 7 resource) about 2.6 km ((1.6 miles)) downstream from it), this site constitutes the best target choice for discovery of a mineralized pluton deeper under or in the immediate vicinity of the Rock Glacier. The next drill test is designed to penetrate 300 meters below the Rock Glacier. The possibility also exists that a more prolific zone of higher density gold-mineralized dikelets could be intersected, which in itself could constitute a gold deposit discovery.

The Company believes it is progressing step by step in solving the more than century-old puzzle of how the more than 50 scattered gold prospects of the Chandalar gold mining district may be genetically related or what other commonality they may have. It is variously manifested in abundant gold showings within an oval NE-oriented zone some 3 km wide and 6 km long (about 18 km²). The Chandalar magmatic-hydrothermal alteration “system” is recognized as a geological fact by those studying it, and is being used as a working model on which to base future explorations. There may be several plutons along this stretch of this zone feeding the “system”. In 2021 and onward, the Company will be focused on identifying “hot spots” within this zone for drill testing.

Joint Venture Agreement

On April 3, 2012, Goldrich Placer, LLC (“GP”), a subsidiary of Goldrich, entered into a term sheet for a joint venture with NyacAU, LLC (“NyacAU”), an Alaskan private company, to bring Goldrich’s Chandalar placer gold properties into production as defined in the joint venture agreement (the “Operating Agreement”), which was subsequently signed and made effective April 2, 2012. In each case as used herein in reference to the JV, ‘production’ is as defined by the JV agreement. As part of the agreement, Goldrich Placer, LLC (“GP”), a subsidiary of Goldrich and NyacAU (together the “Members”) formed a 50:50 joint venture company, Goldrich NyacAU Placer LLC (“GNP”), to operate the Chandalar placer mines, with NyacAU acting as managing partner. Goldrich has no significant control or influence over the JV, and therefore accounts for its investment using the cost less impairment method.

As of December 31, 2018, the JV had not achieved commercial production as required under the Operating Agreement, and as a result the JV was formally dissolved in May 2019 and, as of December 31, 2020, is in the process of being liquidated. The Panel has jurisdiction over the liquidation process and has ruled that NyacAU should continue as the manager of the liquidation. Except for equipment needed for reclamation, most the heavy equipment and the wash plant were removed on a winter trail in March through mid-April 2019.

Under the terms of the joint venture agreement (the “Agreement”), the JV was to make annual Member’s Distributions of 10% of the balance of revenue generated by the Joint Venture after deducting Operating Expenses as defined by the GNP Operating Agreement. Related to these distributions, on June 23, 2015, the Company raised net proceeds of $1.1 million through the sale of 12.5% of the cash flows GP, Goldrich’s subsidiary, receives in the future from its interest in GNP (“Distribution Interest”), paid in cash, to Chandalar Gold, LLC (“CGL”) and GVC Capital, LLC, (“GVC”), both of which are non-related entities. Goldrich retained its ownership of its 50% interest in GNP but, after the transaction, subject to the terms of the GNP operating agreement, Goldrich will effectively receive approximately 44%, CGL will effectively receive 6% (12% of Goldrich’s 50% of GNP = 6%) and GVC will effectively receive 0.25% (0.5% of Goldrich’s 50% of GNP = 0.25%) of any distributions produced by GNP. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, an amount of $35,794 has been accrued for the distribution which is included in accrued liabilities for distributions to us that were applied to Loan3. No amount was accrued for the 2018 distribution due to the dissolution of the JV, although during arbitration proceedings, Loan3 was determined and agreed to be paid in full (see Arbitration below). During the year ended December 31, 2020, Goldrich purchased 595,000 membership units, or approximately 49% of CGL’s membership units for $25,000. This provides Goldrich with 49% of any distributions produced by GNP and paid to CGL. The Company accounts for its investment in CGL using the cost less impairment method. The Company does not anticipate any distributions from CGL until the placer resumes production.

Concerning Loan3, in 2012, the joint venture purchased, on Goldrich’s behalf, a 2% royalty interest, payable on all production from certain Goldrich mining claims at the Chandalar, Alaska property for $250,000 from Jumbo Basin Corporation. This transaction gave rise to Loan3, was carried at an interest rate of the greater of prime plus 2% or 10%, and was to be repaid from distributions to Goldrich as defined in the Operating Agreement, prior to any distributions in cash to Goldrich. The 2016 and 2017 Members Distributions, as adjusted by the rulings of the arbitration Panel, were first applied against Loan3 in accordance with the terms of the Operating Agreement, the distributions were sufficient to pay all of Loan3 principal and interest in full.

33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Arbitration

In 2017, we, our subsidiary and the joint venture, as claimants, filed an arbitration statement of claim before a three-member Arbitration Panel (“the Panel”), against our JV partner and its affiliates; NyacAU, LLC (“NyacAU”), BEAR Leasing, LLC, and Dr. J. Michael James, as respondents. In 2018, the respondents filed a counter-claim against the Company, its subsidiaries and the certain members of our current and former management, the counterclaim respondents. The arbitration claim alleged, amongst other things, claims concerning related-party transactions, accounting issues including capital vs. operating leases, interpretation of the joint venture operating agreement, allocation of tax losses between the joint venture partners, and unpaid amounts due Goldrich relating to the Chandalar Mine.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, and in 2020 subsequent to the end of the reported period, the Panel has released various awards relating to the allegations of both parties. Some of which have been in favor of our positions some have been in favor of our JV partner and its affiliates. The arbitration is ongoing and the various parties to the claims and counterclaims continue to disagree on several matters.

On May 25, 2019, the Panel issued an Interim Award, which requested input from the parties on a small number of discrete issues, all input to be supported by references to the arbitration record. On November 30, 2019, the Panel issued the Partial Final Award and concurrently the Second Interim Award regarding Dissolution/Liquidation of GNP and Related Issues (“the Second Interim Award”). On September 4, 2020, the Arbitration Panel (the “Panel”) issued the Final Post Award Orders, wherein the Panel issued rulings on multiple material issues. On December 4, 2020, the Panel issued Supplemental Orders 5-8. Subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2020, on April 7, 2021, the Panel issued Order on Respondents’ Motion to Preserve Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings, wherein the Panel ruled that the Company did not violate confidentiality when it filed the arbitration rulings as exhibits to its public reporting with the Securities and Exchange. On April 7, 2021, the Panel also issued Order on Respondents’ Motion to Confirm Judgment. A summary of each award is provided below. Matters of minor significance on which the Panel ruled or waived actions on matters over which the Panel had no jurisdiction are not included in the summary.

The Partial Final Award

A summary of the various matters addressed in the Partial Final Award is as follows:

Capital vs. Operating Leases

In response to a claim made by Goldrich, the Panel ruled that certain leases were capital leases, rather than operating leases, which increased the basis upon which distributions are made to the JV partners.  In addition, the Panel modified the interest rates applicable to the leases, which decreased the profitability of the JV for the change in interest on all leases but only decreased the basis upon which distributions are made to Goldrich for leases that were deemed to be operating leases.  The net change had no effect on the Company’s 2020 financial statements. The ruling did, however, affect the amount of interim distributions made from GNP to Goldrich for 2016 and 2017 as noted below.

Ownership by GNP of Leased Equipment

The Panel ruled that certain continuing lease payments made by GNP for equipment treated as operating leases, which were subsequently ruled capital leases, represented buy-out payments at the conclusion of the capital lease.  Therefore, ownership of the subject equipment was transferred to GNP. As a result of the ruling, certain leased equipment became the property of GNP, but was subsequently transferred to Bear Leasing to satisfy other GNP debts when GNP was dissolved.

Lease Charges and Ownership of Arctic Camp Purchased by NyacAU related party from Third-Party 

The Panel ruled that lease payments made by GNP to Bear Leasing toward rented Arctic camp facilities that had been purchased from an unrelated third-party from 2012 through 2014 represented purchase consideration. As a result, GNP was deemed the beneficial owner of the camp in connection with the dissolution/liquidation process. Further, LOC1 was reduced by the lease payments GNP was charged beyond the purchase price for the Arctic camp.

Interim Distributions to Goldrich for 2016 and 2017

34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

As a result of the awards noted above, the Panel determined that the Company is entitled to an additional $214,797 in distributions for 2016 and an additional $198,644 for 2017, for a total of $413,442. In like manner, the Panel determined that NyacAU is entitled to an additional $413,442 in distributions for these years. As we are uncertain as to the collectability of these distributions, no recognition of these revenues is included in our Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2021

Payment of Interest Earned by LOC1

The Partial Final Award also addressed our claim for payment of interest earned by LOC 1. The Panel determined that NyacAU should pay the Company 50% of the interest earned on LOC 1 actually received by NyacAU, or $126,666. NyacAU contested the amount of LOC1 interest paid by GNP to NyacAU. The matter is further discussed below in the summary for the Final Post Award Order and Supplemental Orders.

2012 Reclamation Work

The Panel ruled Goldrich is responsible to pay the full amount charged by GNP for the 2012 reclamation work to NyacAU and NyacAU is also entitled to 5% pre-judgement interest on the award from the date the first invoice was sent to Goldrich. Goldrich has accrued a liability for this ruling, however Goldrich has contested the party to whom payment should be made and whether additional amounts not invoiced by GNP should be included in the award.  

Allocation of Tax Losses 

From 2012 through 2018, NyacAU, as managers of GNP, had allocated net tax losses from GNP totaling $19,888,374 to NyacAU and $839,537 to Goldrich. Goldrich claimed it had a right to 50% of all tax losses under the GNP Operating Agreement and filed Form 8082 for each year with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to correct the GNP K-1’s filed by NyacAU. Goldrich claimed a total of $9,946,369, 50% of the total GNP losses for the years 2012 through 2018. The Panel generally agreed with that allocation but only during the periods where actual mining operations were being performed, since those rationally are the only periods in which both parties bore a material economic risk, in terms of the impact of mining operations on processed and unprocessed gold. Based on the evidence before the Panel, mining operations were performed in August-September 2013, and 2015-2018.

Prior to Goldrich receiving the award, the IRS had processed and accepted the Forms 8082, corrected GNP K-1’s, and amended tax returns filed by Goldrich for 2012 through 2017. The IRS also notified Goldrich that Goldrich’s 2012 through 2014 tax returns were closed for further changes due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for those years. The IRS also conducted an audit of Goldrich’s 2014 through 2017 tax returns with a ‘no change’ determination. Therefore, although Goldrich was not awarded 50% of all GNP 2012 to 2014 tax losses in the arbitration, Goldrich has been allowed to take the full total of its share of GNP tax losses of $9,946,369, which can be used to offset taxable profits Goldrich generates in future years.

In August 2020, the IRS issued an unfavorable ruling as it affects the Company in regard to the audit of the joint venture which, when the individual partners’ effects are communicated to us by the IRS, is probable to decrease our net federal and state net operating loss carryforwards by $2.0 million and $1.8 million, respectively, for the years under audit. The JV partners had been instructed by the Panel to take steps to ensure tax losses have been shared equally, as the Operating Agreement requires, but only during the periods where actual mining operations were being performed. In the closing conference, it was evident that GNP had taken positions with the IRS that conflicted with the Panel’s direction. The recourse available to us in regard to the audit ruling is a challenge of the IRS ruling before the tax court, should we determine this to be in our best interests.

Other

·The arbitration awarded NyacAU’s request that an entry be made on GNP’s books for unpaid and unbilled interest expense of $66,180 under the appropriate Lease, incurred during the period of construction of the wash plant. In the liquidation process, NyacAU (through Bear Leasing) shall be treated as a third-party creditor with respect to the recovery of this amount from GNP. 

·The Panel awarded Dr. James $9,858, plus interest at 5% and legal fees, for personal expenses incurred relating to 2012 Goldrich reclamation costs. These amounts totaling $13,713 have been included in accounts payable and interest payable of the Company at December 31, 2019. An additional $487 has been  

35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

accrued for the year ended December 31, 2020 bringing the total amount accrued in accounts payable and interest payable to $14,200 at December 31, 2020.

·The Partial Final Award found the Company liable for an act of negligent misrepresentation regarding the concealment of certain technical information from NyacAU. We have vigorously disputed the concealment and the finding of negligence. Nevertheless, as a result of the Panel’s determination, the Panel awarded Dr. J. Michael James a reimbursement of 17% of his previous $350,000 stock investment in the Company or $59,500 plus interest of 5% and legal fees. The award plus interest, totaling $83,588, has been accrued and is included in accounts payable and interest payable of the Company at December 31, 2019. An additional $2,970 has been accrued for the year ended December 31, 2020 bringing the total amount accrued in accounts payable and interest payable to $86,558 at December 31, 2020. Attorney’s fees and costs also awarded in the judgement plus interest totaling $886 and $911 have been included in accounts payable and interest payable of the Company at December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2020, respectively.  

·As requested by Goldrich and NyacAU, the Panel will retain jurisdiction and oversight over the dissolution/liquidation process to its completion.  The Panel stated, “there is likely more information the parties will have to provide on certain issues--including, among others, changes in the balance of LOC 1 and the issue of transfer of the permit to Goldrich--before a Final Award on dissolution/liquidation can be made.” As of the date of this report, the balance of LOC1 continues to change as a result of on-going rulings by the Panel. Additionally, the Panel has stated it lacks jurisdiction on the transfer of the mining permit, which the Panel has ruled is a matter to be negotiated between the parties. 

·The Panel ruled that “there has been no prevailing party in the arbitration to this point, although it reserves judgment as to whether a prevailing party will emerge from the Final Award with regard to issues which are now part of the Revised [Second] Interim Award. Accordingly, as to all issues covered by this Partial Final Award, the parties shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.” 

The Second Interim Award

The Second Interim Award was necessitated by the fact that the dissolution/liquidation of the joint venture had not yet run its course. A summary of the various matters addressed in the Second Interim Award is as follows:

Transfer of Mining Permits

The Panel ordered that:

a)No later than January 15, 2020, NyacAU and Goldrich shall attempt to establish, by agreement, a market value for the GNP permit in connection with a transfer of the Permit to Goldrich or a third party, taking into consideration the obligation of GNP, or any transferee of the permit, to complete reclamation in accordance with NyacAU’s government-approved reclamation plan. 

b)Reasonably prior to May 31, 2020, NyacAU shall perform its obligation to “make provision … for reclamation by (1) adding all reclamation expenses actually incurred by NyacAU to LOC 1; (2) from GNP’s assets, to the extent possible after payment of GNP’s debts and liabilities and liquidation expenses”. 

Neither order was successfully executed by the parties on the dates specified by the Panel. The Second Interim Award confirmed the dissolution of GNP and noted that “no provision of the Claims Lease or the Operating Agreement speaks directly to the rights or obligations of GNP to transfer its mining permit, which is held in the name of the manager, NyacAU. Although GNP no longer has the right to mine, GNP and specifically NyacAU have the liability of reclamation. Absent a transfer of the Permit, GNP (through NyacAU) would be obligated to complete reclamation, and obtain final approval from appropriate government authorities, as required by the Claims Lease—a process estimated to take several years.”

If NyacAU does not transfer the mining permit to Goldrich as part of the dissolution, they will retain the requirement to reclaim the mine, and Goldrich will be prevented from mining the property, since two mining permits cannot be

36

TABLE OF CONTENTS

issued for the same claims. The actual cost of the reclamation will be subject to many variables, not the least of which will be whether the remedial activity is undertaken while the mine is inactive or conversely, when the mine is actively producing gold. If the mining permit were to be transferred to Goldrich or another entity with the reclamation obligation intact, the reclamation activity could be undertaken as a key piece of a mining plan in order to mitigate reclamation costs. If an agreement cannot be reached to transfer the mining permit and the associated reclamation of prior mining activities, Goldrich will be prevented from mining its claims until a new mining permit is acquired after the current mining permit expires in 2024, and will be limited to exploration activities on the hard rock deposits of the Chandalar property

NyacAU has indicated they will not transfer the permit without also transferring the reclamation obligation, of which they believe to be approximately $3 million. Goldrich has indicated they will not accept transfer of the permit together with the reclamation obligation, which they believe to be substantially greater. Both parties are in discussion to attempt to reach an agreement for the transfer of both the permit and the reclamation obligation, no transfer of either, or some other arrangement.

Balance and payment of LOC1

The Panel calculated a tentative balance of LOC1 at $16,483,271 as of June 2019. This balance will be adjusted for any additional awards and/or adjustments made by the Panel.

As allowed by the Operating Agreement and a separate Security Agreement between GNP and NyacAU, NyacAU has recorded a security interest in future placer gold production from all current placer claims owned by Goldrich as collateral for repayment of fifty percent (50%) of GNP’s LOC1 to NyacAU. The agreements between GNP and NyacAU are silent concerning what happens if GNP is dissolved and is no longer producing gold, the basis of calculation, timing of remittance and other key factors related to repayment if mining activities were to be undertaken again. If there is no further placer production from these claims, Goldrich does not have a liability to pay LOC1.

The Panel ruled in the Final Post Award, discussed below, that LOC1 cannot be increased for costs incurred after mining operations have ceased, including costs for reclamation. Mining operations ceased on September 21, 2018, but were ruled to have ceased on September 28, 2018 by the Panel. This deprives NyacAU of a security interest in 50% of future placer gold production at the site to repay NyacAU for expenses incurred subsequent to the cessation of mining operations.

If an agreement cannot be reached for the transfer of the mining permit and reclamation liability to Goldrich or an operating company that will harvest the placer gold in the deposit, mining will likely not continue at the mine and LOC1 likely will not be paid. Further, in order to operate the mine, Goldrich will be required to raise money to fund replacement equipment, wash plant, infrastructure and initial operating costs to restart the mine, due to the mining assets which have been removed as part of the liquidation of GNP. Goldrich is actively preparing a new mine plan and an initial assessment to show the mine’s potential, as announced in Goldrich’s news release dated July 29, 2020. However, at the date of this report, there is no candidate for operating the mine without a settling concession as part of the transfer of the permit and the associated reclamation and LOC1 obligations.

Goldrich may not have a reasonable avenue to pursue in restarting the mine and may be limited to raising investment funds for the sole purpose of exploration of the hard rock deposits.

Right to Offset Damages or Distributions 

The Panel granted the request that any damages awarded to one party can be an offset to distributions (or damages) due to the other party.

Judgements issued by Superior Court

On April 29, 2020, the Superior Court of the State of Alaska issued a judgement in favor of Dr. James, in the total amount of $13,713 (for the 2012 reclamation costs personally incurred, including interest) and $83,588 (for the adjustment to Dr. James’ stock purchase, including interest). The Court ordered both Goldrich and NyacAU to submit a status report to the Court in September 2020 regarding the Panel’s clarification of the amounts payable for the 2012 reclamation, including interest, and to clarify the correct party for the award, NyacAU or GNP. The status report has

37

TABLE OF CONTENTS

been filed by both parties, and these judgements remain unpaid and in force before the Superior Court. In June 2020, the Superior Court awarded additional amounts for attorney’s fees and costs. At December 31, 2020, a total of $101,669 is included in accounts payable and interest payable on the consolidated balance sheet for the judgements, additional costs, and interest.

Final Post Award Orders

A summary of the various matters addressed in the Final Post Award is as follows:

On September 4, 2020, the Panel issued Final Post Award Orders, wherein the Panel issued rulings on multiple material issues:

Reclamation:

a)We had previously filed a motion to compel NyacAU to correct accruals for certain expenses including reclamation, demobilization, equipment rental and utilities. Most notably, we contended that an accrual for reclamation liability of approximately $2.1 million was woefully short of an $18.4 million estimate prepared by independent professionals as engaged by Goldrich. The Panel denied our motion and ruled that Goldrich does not have the authority to compel the establishment of any reserves on the GNP financial records; NyacAU having sole authority to establish reserves as manager of the joint venture. There was no direct financial consequence to us as a result of this ruling. This had no effect on the balance of LOC1 as the Panel ruled that costs after mining ended cannot be added to the balance of LOC1. 

b)We had previously filed a motion to compel NyacAU to reclaim the disturbed acres as required under the Operating Agreement and the mining permit issued to NyacAU in 2013, and to require NyacAU to fund the reclamation reserve from cash that had been distributed to NyacAU. The Panel denied our motion and ruled that while there was express provision in the Operating Agreement to establish reserves necessary for contingent or unforeseen liabilities or obligations, which could conceivably include reclamation reserves, the agreement does not impose an express obligation to reclaim the project site. The obligation to perform reclamation is imposed by the claims lease and the mining permit issued to NyacAU, which requires the permit holder to reclaim the site in accordance with government regulations. The ruling also states that the determination of the scope of potential obligations to reclaim under the permit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Panel. Further, the Panel ruled that the Operating Agreement does not impose an obligation on the Company to pay 50% of the reclamation fee, confirming again the obligation resides with the permit holder. Still further, the Panel ruled that the reclamation fees were not operating expenses to bring the mine to commercial production and therefore by definition of the Operating Agreement, precludes reclamation expenses from being added to LOC1, for which Goldrich would be obligated to remit 50% to NyacAU upon liquidation of GNP. This ruling deprives NyacAU of a security interest in 50% of future placer gold production at the site to repay reclamation expenses which it advances. There was no direct financial consequence to us as a result of this ruling; however, the effect on the future balance of LOC1 and our liability for 50% of that balance would be significant now that NyacAU is not allowed to pass through reclamation costs to GNP but is required to retain responsibility for those costs as holder of the mining permit.  

c)NyacAU had previously filed a motion to compel the Company to recognize and remit a reclamation liability that had been invoiced by GNP to Goldrich in 2014 for reclamation work it performed on Goldrich’s behalf for violations resulting from our 2012 mining activities. We had previously challenged the validity of the invoice, citing back charges to GNP that had not been recognized or remitted to it. The Panel denied Goldrich’s claim and ruled in favor of NyacAU. While we continue to work with the Panel to clarify the party to whom the reclamation is payable, the specific amount of the payable and the calculation of interest associated with the liability, Goldrich has recorded an accrued liability totaling $ 421,366 for the year ended December 31, 2019, related to this reclamation liability and associated interest thereon, due to the liability now being estimable and probable under ASC 450. The total consists of $329,157 for reclamation expense and $92,209 for pre- and post-judgement interest expense, calculated at 5%. Additional interest of $16,503 has been accrued during the year ended December 31, 2020 and is included in interest payable at December 31, 2020. 

38

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mining Claims:

All of our mining claims remain the property of the Company.

Repayment of misappropriation of JV funds

We had previously filed a motion to compel NyacAU to repay funds we considered to be misappropriated as payments on LOC1 in contravention of the payment priority requirements as outlined in the Operating Agreement (See Note 4 Joint Venture). A successful challenge of these cash disbursements would return to GNP funds that we considered to be necessary to pay for 2018 partner distributions that have precedence over repayment of LOC1. The ruling was deferred pending additional information to be determined in the future, such as the profitability of operations in 2018, which has not yet been determined when taking the Panel’s ruling into account. In December 2020, the Panel denied the motion, see Supplemental Orders 5-8 below.

Clarification concerning GNP’s 2018 Profitability and 2018 Interim Distributions.

We had made a challenge to the Panel’s understanding of facts related to GNP’s profitability for 2018 as presented in the arbitration proceedings, with a motion to distribute interim distribution after applying the rulings made to date. The Panel deferred ruling on the matter, retaining jurisdiction to decide the issue of interim distributions for 2018 and requested the parties to present evidence and argument (disregarding any jurisdictional issue) as to (i) whether Goldrich has a right to interim distributions for 2018, and (ii) the amount, if any, of distributions to be paid.  Goldrich has submitted a claim for approximately $680,000 plus prejudgment interest thereon at 5%; NyacAU claims that Goldrich is not entitled to any distributions for 2018. In December 2020, the Panel denied the motion, see Supplemental Orders 5-8 below.

Clarification of LOC1 Interest Paid and Amounts Owed to Goldrich.

We had challenged the amount of payment of LOC1 interest by GNP to NyacAU and claimed reimbursement of 50% of the amount remitted as specified by the Operating Agreement. The Panel deferred a ruling and required more information from each party. In December 2020, the Panel ruled in our favor, see Supplemental Orders 5-8 below.

Subordination of Mr. Gallagher’s Security to NyacAU’s Security.

A challenge to the validity of priority of security interest was ruled in the Company’s favor. NyacAU’s security interest for LOC1 was reaffirmed to be gold production from the mining claims, while Mr. Gallagher’s security is perfected in the mining claims themselves. The Panel determined there was no conflict between the two security interests. There was no direct financial consequence to us as a result of this ruling.

Supplemental Orders 5-8

On December 4, 2020, the arbitration Panel issued Supplemental Orders 5-8, wherein the Panel issued rulings on multiple material issues:

·2018 Profitability and 2018 Interim Distributions  

Under the GNP Operating Agreement, Goldrich was entitled to receive certain interim distributions based on GNP’s profitability. Goldrich received such distributions for 2016 and 2017.  Goldrich challenged the Panel’s understanding of facts related to GNP’s profitability for 2018 as presented in the arbitration proceedings and made a motion for GNP to distribute interim distributions for 2018 after applying the arbitration rulings made to date. Goldrich submitted a claim to the arbitration Panel for approximately $680,000 plus prejudgment interest thereon at 5%.  The arbitration Panel denied Goldrich’s claim.  Based on the Panel’s ruling, the paydown by NyacAU, as manager of GNP, of Line of Credit 1 (“LOC1”) with GNP funds, rather than the payment of a 2018 interim distribution to Goldrich, is not considered a misappropriation of funds.  LOC1 is a related party loan between GNP and NyacAU.

The Panel ruled that GNP was dissolved at the end of the 2018 mining season (September 28, 2018) by failing to meet the Minimum Production Requirement of the GNP Operating Agreement rather than May 2019, when NyacAU published a formal notice of dissolution to the State of Alaska and to creditors.  Based on this and other evidence, the Panel found that GNP was dissolved by no later than October 9, 2018, which

39

TABLE OF CONTENTS

precedes the date by which any interim distribution would otherwise have been due under the GNP Operating Agreement (October 31 - December 31, 2018).  Accordingly, the Panel ruled that Goldrich is precluded from receiving any interim distributions for 2018 under the GNP Operating Agreement, which provides that “[m]embers have a right to Distributions from the Company before the dissolution and winding up of the Company.”

·Goldrich’s Portion of Interest Paid on LOC1 

Under the GNP Operating Agreement, Goldrich is to receive 50% of any interest on LOC1 paid by GNP to NyacAU.  Goldrich made a claim to the arbitration Panel that GNP had paid interest to NyacAU and that Goldrich was entitled to 50% of the amount paid.  The Panel ruled that NyacAU is obligated to pay Goldrich 50% of $241,797 in interest “received” by NyacAU up to October 2018, when GNP was dissolved and commenced liquidation, in the total principal amount of $120,883.  Goldrich is also entitled to recover 5% prejudgment interest on unpaid LOC1 interest as it fell due.  The Panel further ruled that LOC1 interest totaled (cumulatively) $3,394.21 as of December 2012; $22,663.46 as of December 2013; $55,632.71 as of December 2014; $101,823.60 as of December 2015; $155,337.06 as of December 2016; $205,817.76 as of December 2017; and $241,797.20 as of October 1, 2018.   Goldrich is awarded 12 months of accrued prejudgment interest at 5% per annum on each of these year-end amounts.  Goldrich has no entitlement to a share of LOC1 interest beyond this.

·Clarification of Award 

In the Partial Final Award given in 2019, the arbitration Panel made an award to NyacAU of $377,253 in damages and pre-award interest relating to 2012 reclamation expenses incurred on Goldrich’s behalf.  Goldrich made an “Application for Modification and Correction of Arbitration Award, for Vacation of Award, or for Resubmission to Arbitration Panel for Clarification”, requesting an order from the Alaska court, under the Alaska Arbitration Act, that the damages awarded for unpaid 2012 reclamation expenses were to be paid to GNP, not NyacAU, and that the Panel clarify the appropriate amount of damages and interest to be paid.  The Panel ruled that it will resolve these issues after the parties submit evidence and argument supporting their respective positions on the merits.

Arbitration Rulings Subsequent to December 31, 2020

Orders on Respondents’ Motion to Confirm Judgment

On April 7, 2021, the Panel issued Order on Respondents’ Motion to Preserve Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings, wherein the Panel ruled that the Company did not violate confidentiality when it filed the arbitration rulings as exhibits to its public reporting with the Securities and Exchange. On April 7, 2021, the Panel also issued Orders on Respondents’ Motion to Confirm Judgment to correct, clarify, or modify an award made in the Partial Final Award, wherein a claim against the Company for $50,685 for additional reclamation costs, including interest of $2,589 was awarded to GNP. This event constitutes a ‘Type 1’ event, which required adjustment and recognition to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2020.  

Estimates of Arbitration

It is possible that there could be either adverse or favorable developments in the arbitration pending with the Company and its JV partner. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending arbitration could encourage the commencement of additional legal action by the affected party.

We record provisions in the consolidated financial statements for pending arbitration results when it determines that an outcome is probable, and the amount of the gain or loss can be reasonably estimated. At the present time, except as stated otherwise, while it is reasonably possible that a favorable or unfavorable outcome in the arbitration may occur, after assessing the information available, management is unable to estimate the possible gain or loss, or range of gains or losses, for the pending arbitration; and accordingly, no estimated gains or losses have been accrued in the consolidated financial statements for favorable or unfavorable outcomes. Legal defense costs are expensed as incurred.

40

TABLE OF CONTENTS