1. Corporate
Presenta,on
August
2011

2. Cau,onary
Statement
The information in this document has been prepared as of February 9, 2011. Certain statements contained in this document constitute “forward-looking statements”
within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and forward looking information under the provisions of Canadian provincial
securities laws. When used in this document, the words “anticipate”, “expect”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “will”, “planned”, and similar expressions are intended to
identify forward-looking statements or information.
Specifically, this presentation contains forward looking statements regarding the results and projections contained in the February 2011 technical report of the
Haile Gold project, including the expected mine life, recovery, capital costs, cash operating costs and other costs and anticipated production of the described open
pit mine, the projected internal rate of return, the projected payback period, the availability of capital for development, sensitivity to metal prices, ore grade, the
reserve and resource estimates on the project, the financial analysis, the timing for completion of the revised feasibility study on the Haile Gold project, the timing
and amount of future production, the timing of construction of the proposed mine and process facilities, capital and operating expenditures, the timing of the receipt
of permits, rights and authorizations, communications with local stakeholders and community relations, availability of financing and any and all other timing,
development, operational, financial, economic, legal, regulatory and political factors that may influence future events or conditions and expected drilling activities.
In addition, this presentation also contains updated resource estimates contained in the February 2011 technical reports.
Scientific and technical information referred herein has been extracted from and are hereby qualified in their entirety by reference to the aforementioned technical
reports (“Technical Reports”). Joshua Snider, P.E., Thomas L. Drielick, P.E., Lee “Pat” Gochnour, M.M.S.A., John Marek, P.E. and Derek Wittwer, P.E. are
responsible for preparing the Technical Reports. Each of the above referenced persons is a “qualified person” as defined in National Instrument 43-101 —
Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects.
Such forward‐looking statements are based on a number of material factors and assumptions, including, but not limited in any manner, those disclosed in any
aother of Romarco’s public filings, and include the ultimate determination of mineral reserves and resources, availability and final receipt of required approvals,
licenses and permits, sufficient working capital to develop and operate the proposed mine, access to adequate services and supplies, economic conditions,
commodity prices, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates, access to capital and debt markets and associated cost of funds, availability of a qualified work
force, lack of social opposition and legal challenges, and the ultimate ability to mine, process and sell mineral products on economically favorable terms. While
Romarco considers these assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available to it, they may prove to be incorrect. Actual results may vary from
such forward‐looking information for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to risks and uncertainties disclosed in other Romarco filings at www.sedar.com.
Forward‐looking statements are based upon management’s beliefs, estimate and opinions on the date the statements are made and, other than as required by law,
Romarco does not intend, and undertakes no obligation to update any forward‐looking information to reflect, among other things, new information or future events
Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources:
Certain tables may use the terms “Measured”, “Indicated” and “Inferred” Resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are recognized and
required by Canadian regulations, however, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred Mineral Resources” have a
great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral
Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other
economic studies. United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into
Mineral Reserves. United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of a Mineral Resource is economically or legally mineable.
2
All figures are US$ unless otherwise indicated

3. History
of
Carolina
Gold
Mining
/
Support
for
the
Project

4. HAILE
GOLD
MINE
–
Mining
History
CAROLINA
SLATE
BELT
§ First
Gold
rush
before
California
Kentucky
§ Carolinas
led
US
Gold
produc,on
un,l
West
Virginia
1848
§ Second
US
Mint
in
CharloMe,
NC
Tennessee
§ Original
49’ers
came
from
East
Coast
Russell
Mine
§ Significant
gold
produc,on
in
80’s-­‐90’s
Hickory
Ironwood
Reed
Mine
Howie
Mine
§ Mining
part
of
local
history/community
Locust
North
Carolina
§ 500
ac,ve
mines
in
South
Carolina
today
Haile
Mine
Brewer
Mine
Bayberry
Buzzard
Ridgeway
Mine
Dorn
Mine
Elm
Magruder
Mine
Bante
Mine
Tathom
Mine
Columbia
Mine
South
Carolina
Georgia

5. Located
in
Mining
Friendly
Jurisdic,on
Ongoing
Community
Involvement
§ Romarco
con,nues
to
build
strong
local
rela,onships
and
support
ê High
local
unemployment
ê Romarco
hires
locally
• 113
employees
+
30
contractors
ê $1
million/month
spent
locally
Awards
Strong
Community
Support
From
le(
to
right:
• 2010
OUTSTANDING
BUSINESS
AWARD
presented
to
HAILE
GOLD
MINE
by
Kershaw
Chamber
of
Commerce
• 2011
CITIZEN
OF
THE
YEAR
presented
to
DIANE
GARRETT
by
Kershaw
Chamber
of
Commerce
• 2011
COMMUNITY
CITIZENSHIP
AWARD
presented
to
DAVID
THOMAS
by
Mining
Associa:on
of
South
Carolina
5

6. Romarco
Overview

7. Romarco
–
Company
Overview
Company
Descrip,on
§ Romarco
is
a
gold
development
company
focused
Project
Loca,on
on
produc,on
primarily
in
the
U.S.
NORTH
Charlotte
§ The
Company’s
flagship
project
is
the
Haile
Gold
CAROLINA
Mine
in
South
Carolina
Haile Mine
Myrtle
ê Feasibility
study
completed
SOUTH Columbia
Beach
ê Permits
pending
CAROLINA
ê System
remains
open
in
all
direcOons
at
depth
§ Experienced
board,
management
&
technical
team
Capitaliza,on
Summary
GEORGIA Atlantic Ocean
Exchange/
Symbol
TSX:R
Share
Price(1)
C$1.64
Shares
Outstanding
(Basic)
503.3M
• Romarco
controls
11,000+
acres
of
FD
Shares
Outstanding
(TSM)(2)
520.7M
100%
private
land
Market
CapitalizaOon(1)
C$825M
• Surface,
mineral
and
water
rights
52
Week
High
/
Low(1)
C$2.88
/
C$1.30
• ~
9,900
acres
owned
fee
simple
Cash
Balance
(June
30,
2011)
US$63M
(1)
As
at
close
on
June
30,
2011
(2)
Calculated
using
treasury
stock
method.
Includes
5.6mm
“in-­‐the-­‐money”
op:ons
at
an
average
strike
price
of
C$0.53
as
of
June
30,
2011
7
181
Bay
St.
Suite
3630,
Toronto,
ON,
M5J
2T3
│Email:
info@romarco.com
│Office:
416.367.5500
│Fax:
416.367.5505
│Website:
www.romarco.com

8. Strong
Board,
Management
and
Technical
Team
§ Proven
gold
mine
development,
finance,
perming
and
opera,ons
experience
ê Romarco
has
the
team
in
place
to
bring
Haile
into
producOon
Experienced
Board
of
Directors
Strong
Management
&
Technical
Team
Edward
A.
van
Ginkel,
Chairman
Diane
R.
GarreM,
Ph.D.,
President
&
CEO
§ Consultant,
former
Noranda,
Dayton
Mining
§ Former
Dayton
Mining,
US
Global
Investors
Diane
R.
GarreM
James
R.
Arnold,
Sr.
VP,
COO
§ Former
Dayton
Mining,
US
Global
Investors
§ Former
Freeport,
Gold
Fields
–
Richards
Award
Winner
James
R.
Arnold
Stan
Rideout,
Sr.
VP,
CFO
§ Former
Freeport,
Gold
Fields
–
Richards
Award
Winner
§ Former
Phelps
Dodge
Leendert
Krol
James
Berry,
Chief
Geologist
&
Regional
Explora,on
Manager
§ Former
Brazuro,
Newmont
§ Former
Barrick
Don
MacDonald
Brent
Anderson,
Mine
Manager
§ CFO
QuadraFNX,
former
NovaGold,
DeBeers,
Dayton
Mining
§ Former
Quadra,
Freeport
John
Marsden
Kevin
Russell,
Regional
Geologist
§ Consultant,
former
Freeport
–
Richards
Award
Winner
§ Former
Barrick
Patrick
Michaels
Jim
Wickens,
Process
Manager
§ Porgolio
Manager
–
Zuri-­‐invest,
Switzerland
§ Former
Barrick
Robert
van
Doorn
OM
Jackson,
Health
&
Safety
§ Former
Mundoro,
Rio
Narcea,
Morgan
Stanley
§ Former
Freeport
Johnny
Pappas,
Director
of
Environmental
Affairs
§ Former
Freeport
Ramona
Schneider,
Environmental
Manager
§ Former
Kinross
Dan
Symons,
Manager
Investor
Rela,ons
§ Former
Renmark
Financial
8

9. Introduc,on
to
the
Haile
Gold
Mine
Project
FEBRUARY 2011 § Feasibility completed
$275 million § One of lowest capital cost projects in industry
$379/oz § One of lowest operating cost projects in industry
($347/oz first 5 years)
2.06 g/t § One of highest grade open-pit projects in industry
9

10. Low
Capital
Cost
Development
Capex
for
Primary
Open
Pit
Asset
(US$mm)
(1)
*
All
figures
are
in
millions
of
dollars
(1)
Source:
Company
Disclosure
10
Peers
include
direct
and
indirect
costs,
con:ngency
funding
and
previously
sunk
development
capital
(sustaining
capital
not
included)

11. Low
Cash
Cost
$600! LOWEST QUARTILE AVERAGE CASH
$559!
COST IN 2010 (1)
$500!
$379! $426!
$400!
$300!
$200!
$100!
$0!
Industry Average (1)
ROMARCO Lowest Quartile (1)
LOM Average (2)
(1) Source:
GFMS
presenta:on,
Gold
Survey
2010
Update
11
(2) Announced
February
9,
2011

12. High
Reserve
Grade
for
Open
Pit
Reserve
Grade
for
Primary
Open
Pit
Asset
(g/t
Au)
(1)
(1)
Source:
BMO
Capital
Markets
12

13. Environmental
/
Perming

14. Environmental
Opera,ons
Team
Consultants
• Gochnour
Associates
Pat
Gochnour
• Kennedy
ConsulMng
Services
Craig
Kennedy
• AMEC
Earth
and
Environmental
JIM
ARNOLD
JOHNNY
PAPPAS
RAMONA
SCHNEIDER
• Tetra
Tech
Sr.
VP.,
COO
Director
Director
of
Environmental
Affairs
Environmental
Manager
• Schlumberger
Water
Services
P.E.,
B.Sc.
Metallurgical
Engineering
James
R.
Arnold
is
the
current
Senior
Vice
• Schafer
Limited
Johnny
Pappas
has
a
disOnguished
career
Ramona
Schneider
has
been
with
the
President
and
Chief
OperaOng
Officer
of
in
the
field
of
environmental
management
Haile
Gold
Mine
since
1990
working
for
• Arcadis
Romarco.
Mr.
Arnold
was
recently
Vice
and
perminng.
Mr.
Pappas
recently
held
Piedmont
Mining
Company,
AMAX
Gold,
President,
Colorado
OperaOons
for
Freeport-­‐ the
posiOon
of
Environmental
Manager
of
and
Kinross
Gold.
As
Environmental
• Genesis
ConsulMng
Group
McMoRan
where
he
led
the
Climax
re-­‐start
the
Climax
Mine
and
was
Permit
Manager,
Ms.
Schneider
is
responsible
for
project
through
feasibility,
engineering,
Coordinator
for
Barrick’s
Cortez
Gold
• Ecological
Resources
Consultants
staffing
and
construcOon.
Prior
to
there
he
perminng,
maintaining
current
permits
Mines.
In
addiOon,
he
has
held
several
and
regulatory
compliance,
organizing
• Environmental
Banc
and
Exchange
was
V.P.
Technical
Services
for
Coeur
Senior
Environmental
Engineer
posiOons
closure
sampling
programs,
preparing
d’Alene
Mines
Corp.
and
also
held
the
(EBX)
with
Pacificorp,
Plateau
Mining,
and
Santa
regulatory
reporOng
documents,
posiOon
of
General
Manager
for
Kinross’
Fe
Pacific
Gold.
Mr.
Pappas
is
recognized
Goldbanks
Project
and
Manager
of
Santa
Fe
monitoring
reclamaOon
projects,
and
• McNair
Law
Firm
Pacific
Gold’s
Twin
Creeks
project
in
Nevada.
as
a
leader
in
his
field
and
has
won
managing
the
baseline
programs.
Mr.
Arnold
holds
a
degree
in
Metallurgical
numerous
awards
including
the
2003
• C.A.
Clark
ConsulMng,
LLC
Engineering
from
University
of
Idaho
and
an
“Best
of
the
Best”
Award
–
awarded
by
Catherine
Clark
M.S.
degree
in
Engineering
Management.
the
Department
of
Interior’s
Office
of
Surface
Mining
in
recogniOon
for
extraordinary
personal
commitment
and
outstanding
contribuOon
for
the
reclamaOon
success
at
the
Castle
Gate
Mine
and
the
2003
“Excellence
in
Surface
Coal
Mining
ReclamaOon”
Award.
14

15. Environmental
Impact
Statement
Process
§ EIS
is
common
place
in
mining
§ No,ce
of
Intent
to
prepare
an
EIS
published
in
the
Federal
Register
§ 90
day
public
comment
period
§ Agency
and
public
scoping
mee,ng
–
one
or
more
§ Dran
EIS
§ 90
day
public
review
and
comment
period
§ Romarco
responds
to
comments
§ Final
EIS
includes
comments,
amendments
if
necessary
§ 30
day
minimum
comment
period
§ Record
of
Decision
(ROD)
15

16. EIS
Posi,ves
§ Eliminates
poten,al
challenge
to
EA
decision
§ Approximate
12
month
delay
of
start-­‐up
§ Analysts
es,mate
4-­‐12%
NAV
impact
to
project
due
to
cash
flow
,ming
§ Explora,on
con,nues
ê PotenOal
to
increase
reserves
and
grade
ê Reduce
strip
raOo
ê Further
define
mineralizaOon
between
deposits
ê AddiOonal
Ome
to
opOmize
mine
plan
with
new
resources
reserve
model
ê Within
exisOng
permit
area
and
7,000
tpd
mill
ê More
Ome
to
define
and
study
underground
targets
§ More
,me
to
value
engineer
plant
design
16

17. EIS
Decision
Drivers
§ Large
volumes
of
technical
data
submiMed
by
Romarco
ê WETLANDS
ê Avoidance
minimizaOon
ê Studies
completed
ê Minor
modificaOons
may
occur
ê TAILINGS
SITE
FACILITY
ê Leak
detecOon
system
ê CN
Distruct
Circuit
ê Any
potenOal
wildlife
issues
ê Studies
completed
ê CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS
17

18. EIS
Decision
Drivers
§ No
,me
has
been
lost
§ All
review
and
comment
periods
since
January
2011
were
a
required
process
for
both
EIS
and
EA
§ Addi,onal
dollar
costs
associated
with
EIS
ê $2
million
ê Consultants
legal
§ Next
Steps:
ê SelecOon
of
contractor
ê Preparing
schedule
ê Begin
scoping
work
18

19. Streams
Mi,ga,on
Plan
SubmiMed
§ 38,775
linear
feet
of
streams
impacted
(296,396
stream
credits*)
•
MiOgaOon
Plan:
68,271
linear
feet
of
streams
Restored
151,692
linear
feet
of
streams
Preserved
219,963
linear
feet
of
streams
MiOgated
§ 314,646
total
stream
credits
(106%)
§ MiOgaOng
567%
of
impact
* Credits are determined in accordance with USACE’s procedures
19

20. Wetlands
Mi,ga,on
Plan
SubmiMed
§ 161
acres
of
wetlands
impacted
(1,842
credits*)
• MiOgaOon
plan
submiwed
(credit
for
credit)
MiOgaOon
Plan:
297
acres
Restored
621
acres
Preserved
918
acres
MiOgated
§ 1,932
acres
total
credits
(105%)
§ MiOgaOng
571%
of
impact
* Credits are determined in accordance with USACE’s procedures
20

21. Wetlands
at
Haile
Property
Typical
Palustrine
Emergent
Wetland
21

22. Wetlands
at
Haile
Property
Typical
Palustrine
Forested
Wetland
(saturated)
22

23. Wetlands
at
Haile
Property
Typical
Palustrine
Forested
Wetland
(inundated)
23

24. Streams
at
Haile
Property
Non-­‐RelaOvely
Permanent
Waters
(intermiwent
stream
channel)
24

25. Streams
at
Haile
Property
Typical
Riverine
(stream
channel)
25

26. Clear
Plan
to
Bring
Haile
Into
Produc,on
§ Strong
balance
sheet
with
approximately
$63M
in
cash
and
no
debt(1)
§ Well
defined
project
schedules
and
clear
development
milestones
Project
Schedule
for
EIS
Haile
Milestones
and
Status
Report
2011
2012
2013
2014
Milestone
/
AcOvity
Status
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Complete
feasibility
study
P
Feasibility
Study
State
operaOng
permit
P
OpOmizaOon
submiwed
Perminng
401/404
permit
submiwed
P
ConstrucOon
Resource
/
reserve
report
P
ProducOon
Expand
Haile
Horseshoe
2011
ExploraOon
Acquire
other
properOes
2011
Explore
regional
targets
2011
26
(1)
As
at
June
30,
2011

27. Explora,on
Upside

28. Significant
Remaining
Explora,on
Upside
Poten,al
§ 2010
drill
program
of
108,000m
confirmed
resource
at
Haile
remains
open
along
strike
and
at
depth
ê 40%
of
2010
drilling
focused
on
condemnaOon
drilling
to
locate
suitable
tailings
site
#!!$!!!
()$$$% § MI resources increased 44%
('!$!!!
§ MI grade increased 21% (to 1.82 g/t)
(!$!!! § MI tonnes increased 20%
2010
§ Inferred resources declined 46%
(%!$!!! Highlights
ê Conversion to indicated
*+,+-.%/0%1-233245%
(#!$!!! § Inferred grade increased 33% (to 1.34 g/t)
($!$$$%
§ 2P reserves increased 54%
(!!$!!!
'$$$%
'!$!!!
!$!!!
%!$!!!
#!$!!!
!#$$%
!
2008
2009
2010
2011
28

29. Significant
Remaining
Explora,on
Upside
Poten,al
2010
Explora,on
Findings
Upside
From
Mineraliza,on
Not
Captured
§ Confirms underground potential § Zone not yet drill defined along strike and
Horseshoe Deep down dip
§ Highest grade Horseshoe
Discovery § Potential new zone may exist south of
§ Underground economic study (2011) Zone
main Horseshoe/Snake trend
§ Extending to west and south § Mineralization encountered in down dip
South Pit
§ Higher grades encountered Snake extensions of Snake deposit
Deep
§ Areas lie beneath the resource shell
Zone
§ Additional drilling is planned
§ Extending to west and at depth
Ledbetter
§ Higher grades
§ Drill hole intercepts lie below the resource
Mustang shell
§ Extending at depth § Additional drilling is planned
Snake
§ Higher grades
Haile § Remains open § Strike extends beyond the resource shell
Mill Zone
Corridor § Connecting Horseshoe § Step-out drilling is planned to test extent
29

30. Resource
Growth
3.5 KM
2 0 1 0
US$950 PITS
PLAN VIEW
601
CHAMPION
SMALL
SOUTH PIT
LEDBETTER
SNAKE
HORSESHOE
HAILE
LONG
SECTION
US$950 PIT LIMITS
30

31. New
Regional
Explora,on
Targets
§ 3
in
South
Carolina
ê Bayberry
–
currently
drilling
Kentucky
ê Similar
host
rocks,
alteraOon
and
mineralizaOon
as
West
Virginia
observed
at
Haile
ê 74
shallow
rotary
holes,
8
RC
holes,
and
8
core
holes
previously
drilled
on
the
property
Tennessee
ê Historical
Reported,
highlighted
intercepts
include:
ê 7.0
meters
of
4.3
g/t
ê 26.0
meters
of
1.8
g/t
ê 12.0
meters
of
1.2
g/t
ê 7.3
meters
of
1.8
g/t
Hickory
Ironwood
ê Locust
–
drill
ready
Locust
North
Carolina
ê Small
historical
oxide
resource
(pre
43-­‐101)
Haile
Mine
ê 34
RC
and
27
core
holes
have
been
drilled
on
the
Bayberry
Buzzard
property
Elm
ê Historical
Reported,
highlighted
intercepts
include:
ê 71.5
meters
of
2.9
g/t
ê 5.1
meters
of
1.5
g/t
ê 74.6
meters
of
1.5
g/t
South
Carolina
ê 65.0
meters
of
1.9
g/t
ê Elm
Georgia
ê Property
is
ready
for
soil
and
rock
chip
sampling
ê Preliminary
rock
chip
sampling
has
yielded
8.6
g/t
31

32. New
Regional
Explora,on
Targets
§ 2
in
North
Carolina
ê Hickory
–
mobilizing
rig
Kentucky
ê Historical
producOon
during
1800s
West
Virginia
ê Historical
drilling
consists
of
11
core
holes
and
130
RC
holes
ê Historical
Reported,
highlighted
intercepts
include:
Tennessee
ê 19.8
meters
of
4.7
g/t
ê 21.3
meters
of
4.0
g/t
ê 22.9
meters
of
3.4
g/t
ê 17.0
meters
of
2.1
g/t
Hickory
Ironwood
ê Ironwood
–
drill
ready
North
Carolina
ê The
highest
grade
encountered
in
the
trenching
was
Locust
9.1
g/t
Haile
Mine
Bayberry
Buzzard
ê Twelve
shallow
RC
holes
and
two
core
holes
have
been
drilled
Elm
ê Historical
Reported,
highlighted
intercepts
include:
ê 3.0
meters
of
4.4
g/t
South
Carolina
Georgia
32

33. Feasibility

34. Near
Term,
Low
Cost
Gold
Producer
§ Posi,ve
feasibility
study
on
Haile
Summary
of
Haile
Feasibility
Study
(US$950
Gold)
announced
on
Feb.
9,
2011
2
P
Gold
Reserves
( 000
oz)
2,018
§ Strong
project
economics
with
robust
Recovery
Rate
(%)
83.7
IRR
and
NPV
at
conserva,ve
gold
Net
Recoverable
Gold
( 000
oz)
1,681
prices
Annual
Mill
Throughput
( 000
t)
2,555
ê Low
cash
cost
operaOon
Daily
Mill
Throughput
(tpd)
7,000
ê Manageable,
low
cost
capital
requirements
Mine
Life
(years)
13.25
§ Posi,ve
feasibility
study
does
not
Overall
Strip
RaOo
(waste:ore)
7.2:1
include
Average
Feed
Grade
to
Mill
(LOM)
(g/t)
2.06
ê Horseshoe
Average
ProducOon
(year
1)
( 000
oz)
172
ê Snake
Deep
Average
ProducOon
(years
1
-­‐
5)
( 000
oz)
150
ê Mustang
Cash
Costs
(year
1-­‐5)
(US$/oz)
347
ê Mill
Zone
extensions
Cash
Costs
(LOM)
(US$/oz)
379
ê 601
IniOal
Capital
Expenditures
(US$M)
275.5
ê Inferred
resources
within
US$950
Pit
Sustaining
Capital
Expenditures
(US$M)
119.2
Net
Present
Value
(5%
discount)
§ Open
all
direc,ons
and
at
depth
Pre-­‐Tax
(US$M)
279
§ 2011
economic
studies
Internal
Rate
of
Return
ê Underground
PEA
Pre-­‐Tax
(%)
19.6
34

35. NPV
IRR
Sensi,vity
to
Gold
Price
Pre-­‐tax
NPV
and
IRR
Sensi,vity
to
Gold
Price
(1)
($
Millions,
except
gold
price)
Gold
Price
PAYBACK
NPV
@0%
NPV
@
5%
NPV
@
10%
IRR
%
Per
oz.
YEARS
$2000
$2,261
$1,521
$1,058
69.3%
1.4
$1900
$2,094
$1,403
$970
64.9%
1.5
$1800
$1,927
$1,285
$883
60.5%
1.6
$1700
$1,760
$1,166
$796
56.1%
1.7
$1600
$1,593
$1,048
$708
51.6%
1.8
$1500
$1,426
$930
$621
47.0%
2.0
$1400
$1,259
$811
$534
42.3%
2.2
$1300
$1,092
$693
$447
37.6%
2.4
$1200
$925
$575
$359
32.7%
2.7
$1100
$758
$457
$272
27.6%
3.1
$1000
$591
$339
$185
22.3%
3.8
$950
$507
$279
$141
19.6%
4.2
$800
$257
$102
$10
10.7%
7.6
$700
$90
($16)
($77)
4.0%
9.4
(1) As per parameters used in February 9, 2011 Feasibility Technical Report
35

36. Clear
Plan
to
Bring
Haile
Into
Produc,on
Design
Overflow
Process
Descrip,on
§ Conven,onal
opera,on
Design
Overflow
Process
Descrip,on
§ Simple
flowsheet
§ Robust
“Simple”
§ Off-­‐the-­‐shelf
Crush

Grind

Flota,on
Flowsheet
technology
§ Proven
Technologies
Regrind
Flot
Con

Leach
Con
§ Ability
to
expand
project
scale
to
include
§ Flexible,
Expandable
Leach
Flot
Tail

Recover
both
addi,onal
resource
discoveries
§ Non-­‐Refractory
CN
Detox

Tail
Storage
Facility
§ Off-­‐The-­‐Shelf
Standard
Carbon
Elu,ons,
EW
Technology
§ No
Long
Lead
Time
Units
36

37. Clear
Plan
to
Bring
Haile
Into
Produc,on
Mill
Plant
Facility
Rendering
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
OVERLAND
CONVEYOR
MILL
BUILDING
HAUL
TRUCK
FUELING
STATION
LEACHING
STOCKPILE
TAILING
TRUCK
WASH
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
37

38. Valua,on

39. Analyst
Coverage
§ 6
Analysts
Covering
Romarco
ANALYSTS
12
Month
Target
Price
Paradigm
Capital
$3.10
BMO
Capital
Markets
$3.00
GMP
SecuriOes
$2.50
NBF
$2.50
RBC
Capital
Markets
$2.25
CIBC
World
Markets
$1.95
39

40. P/NAV
vs
Peer
Group
§ Romarco
trades
at
a
discount
to
its
developer
peers
on
a
P/NAV
basis(1)
July 4, 2011 Romarco Minerals Inc.
!
#$%%'!()!*+,,-.'!/0123!4+5'%65-7)!8-,9%.9!:;5!/,;+=-,7!
'%#
'%!#
'$%#
'!!#
!%#
!%!#
!$%#
!!!#
()*+,-./*0 1*+/*) 234)536+ 738).93 5:;)*) :.3-=)* 8=.0/*0 ?.=6)@*=; 7)/*; 5.=;,A). 5)B./=6 21C?/=.CDDD F=A3:. 21C?/=.CDD
536+/=6+, 56+6+, 140 7/4=. 7=, E.3+C140 536+ E.3+C140
(3:.9=GC7HICI)-/A)6CJ).K=A,CD*9C
#$%%'!)!?;,-=@7'!A6-,@'%;.7)!B@%5-!4%.-!/,;C-='!
300,000 $600
Source: RBC Capital Markets Inc., as at July 5, 2011
40
250,000 $500
S$/oz)
(oz)
200,000 $400

41. EV / Oz (US$/o
P/NAV
vs
Peer
Group
5.0
$150
5.0
5.0
Detour
5.0
Keegan
Detour
Total Resources Fronteer Geography
Keegan
4.5
Goldstone Fronteer
4.5
4.5
Fronteer
4.5
$100 Tower Hill
Int.
Goldstone
Orezone Victoria
Russia, E. Europe, BC, Alaska, Ontario, Quebec, Chile, Australia, West/South
Int. Tower Hill
50 Mozs 20 Mozs 10 Mozs 5 Mozs N. Africa Other Nevada, Brazil, Guyana Africa, Mexico
4.0
Orezone Victoria
4.0
1.5x
4.0
Grayd
Volta Resources Belo Sun
4.0
Amarillo
Riverstone Resources
e Patch Grayd
3.5
$50
Exeter Volta Resources Belo Sun
Average EV / In Situ Oz (US$ 000s): $97/oz
3.5
Pediment Midway
Amarillo
Cassidy
3.5
Northern Freegold Vior Riverstone Resources PMI
Rye Patch
Temex
Exeter
1.3x
3.0
Northern Gold Pediment Midway
Cassidy
Gold Grade (g/t)
Vior PMI
3.5
3.0 3.0
Northern Freegold
Coral
0.8 1.3 1.8
Temex 2.3
Gold Grade (g/t)
Andina
Northern Gold Detour Gold
2.5
$0 Gold Grade (g/t)
Gold Grade (g/t)
Coral
2.0 2.5 2.5
Gabriel
0.3 1.1x
Andina 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3
2.0
Gold Grade (g/t)
3.0
P / NAV
Greystar
Rainy River
Gold Grade (g/t)
1.5
Trelawney
0.9x
1.52.0
Average P / NAV: 0.8x
2.5
Guyana GF
1.0
European Goldfields
1.5
Romarco
1.0
0.5
0.7x
Andina
2.0
NovaGold
0.0
1.0
Premier Gold
2.0 4.0 6.0
0.5
200
150
100
50
0
0.5x
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0 160.0 200.0
0.0
0.5
EV / In Situ (US$ 000s / oz)
1.5
200
150
100
50
0
Source: RBC Equity Research, Company Information as at July 5, 2011
41
Note: Average figures include Romarco
AMC / Oz (US$/oz)
0.0
0
50
00
50
00

42. Summary
§ Near
term,
low
cost
gold
producer
with
strong
project
economics
§ Located
in
a
mining
friendly
jurisdicOon
with
excellent
infrastructure
§ Large
resource
with
significant
remaining
exploraOon
upside
potenOal
§ Strong
board,
management
and
technical
team
§ Clean
plan
to
bring
Haile
into
producOon
§ Solid
cash
posiOon
(~
US$63
million),
no
debt
–
as
of
June
30,
2011
§ 11
drill
rigs
–
172,000
meters
drilling
scheduled
for
2011
(~US$30
million)
§ Haile
system
remains
open
in
all
direcOons
at
depth
42

43. Contact
Informa,on
Head
Office
Informa,on
Dan
Symons
Romarco
Minerals
Inc.
Manager,
Investor
RelaOons
Brookfield
Place
dsymons@romarco.com
181
Bay
Street,
Suite
3630
Toronto,
Ontario
M5J
2T3
Tel:
416.367.5500
Fax:
416.367.5505
Email:
info@romarco.com
Website:
www.romarco.com
43