Mining Done Right

Credit Suisse Small & Mid Cap Conference

September 20, 2012

B D HBruce D. HansenChief Executive Officer

Cautionary StatementsThis presentation contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended that are intended to be covered by the safe harbor created by such sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, (i) estimates of future molybdenum prices, supply, demand and/or production; (ii) estimates of future cash costs, direct operating costs, costs applicable to sales (CAS), or royalty payments; (iii) estimates of future capital expenditures; (iv) estimates regarding timing of permitting, future development, construction or production activities; (v) statements regarding cost structure, project economics, or competitive position, and (vi) statements comparing Mt. Hope to other mines, projects, or metals. Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis However forward looking statements are subject to risksbelief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, metals price and production volatility, global economic conditions, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, exploration risks and results, political, operational and project development risks, including the Company’s ability to obtain required permits to commence production and its ability to meet conditions precedent required to complete the Hanlong financing, adverse governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annual g g j p yReport on Form 10K, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the Company’s other SEC filings. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly revisions to any “forward-looking statement,” to reflect events orcircumstances after the date of this presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Reserves and ResourcesCalculations with respect to "proven reserves" and "probable reserves" referred to above have been made in accordance with, and using the definitions of National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, the U.S. SEC applies a different standard in order to classify mineralization as a "reserve". Under SEC standards, mineralization may not be classified as a "reserve" unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time the reserve determination is made. No such determinations have been made with respect to any mineralization at the Liberty project, and it cannot be assured that such a determination will be made. This release also uses the terms “measured” “indicated” and “inferred” resources We caution U S investors that while such terms are recognized and required bymeasured , indicated and inferred resources. We caution U.S. investors that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian Securities Administrators pursuant to the National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize them. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred Resources”, in particular, have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty 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 Securities Administration rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally minable.

2

General Moly: Who We Are

N t d • Mt Hope: a large and high-grade moly projectNear-term producer of molybdenum with

two world-class projects

• Mt. Hope: a large and high-grade moly project

• Liberty: a follow-on moly & copper project to grow General Moly into the largest pure-play primary moly producer in the worldp j primary moly producer in the world

Company supported • Up to $870 million financing arrangement with

Hanlong1Co pa y suppo edthrough significant

strategic partnerships

g

• 20% Mt. Hope Joint Venture with POSCO

• Off-take 100% committed for first five years

Significant Catal sts

• Significant State Permits already received (Water, Air)

Other State Permits to be granted H2 2012Significant Catalysts Anticipated in 2012

• Other State Permits to be granted H2 2012 (Water Pollution, Reclamation)

• Federal Permits (ROD) to be granted H2 2012

31. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring, includes $665 CDB term loan, $80mm direct equity investment, plus

up to $125 sub-debt facility per non-binding LOI.

• $930 million in financing (Debt, Equity, JV) to be closed

Mt. Hope – A World-Class Moly Project

R

BattleMountain

Winnemucca

Carlin

Elko Wells

Mt. H

Tonopah

Reno

Austin Eureka ElyHope

Mining-friendly • Access to infrastructure, labor & support services Tonopahg y

location in Nevada USA

& support services

• Near many operating mines• Annual production of 40M lbs1

P d f 0 1% M 1Large scale project with high Mo grades

and low costs

• Process grades of 0.1% Mo1

• 1.3 billion pounds moly contained in Proven & Probable Reserves

C h f $ 29 d M 1 ll i i d• Cash costs of $5.29 per pound Mo1 – well positioned on cash cost curve

Advanced stage of • Bankable Feasibility Study completed with recently

revised capital estimate of $1.284 billion

41. Average over the first five years of operations

development• Engineering more than 60% complete

• $197M spent on permitting, long-lead equipment

Liberty - A Second World-Class Moly Project

Reno

BattleMountain

Winnemucca

Carlin

Elko Wells

Tonopah

Austin Eureka Ely

LibertyA previous producing mine of moly and

copper

• Anaconda operated 1982-1985

• Cyprus Minerals operated 1988-1991

• Canadian Reserves containing 739M lbs Mo and 893M lbs Cu

Pre-feasibility study completed November

2011

• Production of 20M lbs Mo and 17M lbs Cu over first 5 years at costs of $5.70/lb Mo1

• 42 year mine life

51. Costs estimated using $2.50/lb Cu byproduct credits. See November 2011 43-101 Report on SEDAR for more information2. NPV estimated using $15/lb Mo and $2.50/lb Cu, discounted at 8%

• After-tax NPV8% of $538 million2, IRR of 19.7%

Project and Financing TimelineApproval of baseline studies September 2008

Publish Preliminary Draft EIS August 2010

Approval of hydrology reports

pp p

June 2010

Receive first $40M equity tranche from Hanlong

Publish Draft EIS

December 2010

December 2011

Conclude Public Comment Period March 1 2012Conclude Public Comment Period

NV State Air Permit Receipt May 30, 2012

NV State Court Denies Water Appeal June 14, 2012

Revised Capital estimate and August 1 2012

Receive Final Permits (ROD) H2 2012

Revised Capital estimate and Hanlong LOI

August 1, 2012

Completion of Preliminary FEIS September 5, 2012

ROD + 3 months target

Receive ~$100M from POSCO

Access $665M Chinese Bank Loan

Receive final $40M equity tranche from Hanlong

20-24 months construction6

Initiate Construction

Commence Production

General Moly Partnerships• POSCO 3rd largest global steel producerPOSCO, 3 largest global steel producer

• 20% Joint Venture Partner at Mt. Hope project

• $156M buy-in values Mt. Hope at $780M

H l Chi l t• Hanlong, Chinese conglomerate• Privately held, not state-owned

• $870M financing package to fully fund project

• Will become largest GMO shareholder, customer

• APERAM, former stainless division of ArcelorMittal• GMO’s 2nd largest shareholder, 2nd largest customer

• Bought shares at $8.50 in late 2007

• Other Customers• SeAH Besteel & Sojitz have off-take agreements

• Total sales fully committed for first five years of operationsTotal sales fully committed for first five years of operations• Half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14.00-$15.00/lb with ~80% upside participation

above floor7

1. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring

Off-Take 100% Committed – First 5 Years1. Hanlong (March 2010)1. Hanlong (March 2010)

• 16.5M lb off-take over first five years, additional rights LOM1

• 25% of off-take contains floor prices, 75% near spot175% near spot

2. APERAM2 (Nov 2007)• 6.5M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement

for five years with floor price t ti 3protection3

• 3.0M lb off-take option for years 6-15, requires 10% FD ownership of GMO

3. SeAH Besteel (May 2008)( y )• 4.0M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement

for five years with floor price protection3

4 Sojitz Corporation (Aug 2008)15.5M annual pounds committed with price protection that includes:4. Sojitz Corporation (Aug 2008)

• 1.0M lb off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection3,4

• 4.0M lb off-take agreement for five years near spot3 4

that includes:

• A hard floor price between $14.00-$15.00 per pound on average;

• PPI escalation annually;

8

years near spot3,4

• A modest discount to customer above floor price1. Contingent upon completion of Hanlong transaction2. APERAM was the stainless steel division of ArcelorMittal and was spun off as a separate public company as of January 25, 20113. Off-take agreements begin only when Mt. Hope reaches certain levels of commercial production and do not require General Moly to deliver product other than its own. 4. The Sojitz agreement is contingent upon General Moly delivering production by January 2013.

Molybdenum Overview

• Essential metal for modern industry• Industrial requirements demand better steelsq

• Strengthens steel, improves weldability, reduces brittleness, helps steel perform in very high or very low temperatures

• Applications for energy, pipeline development, nuclear power plants, desalination, refineries, catalyst for high sulphur fuels, motor vehicles

• Powerful anti-corrosive alloy for stainless and alloy steelsPowerful anti corrosive alloy for stainless and alloy steels

• Molybdenum is vital in the products in which it is used with few substitutes

Moly demand is relatively price inelastic

9

• Moly demand is relatively price inelastic

Moly Demand Growth Projected to be Robust• Moly demand to grow +30M lbs per year or approximately 128M lbs by• Moly demand to grow +30M lbs per year, or approximately 128M lbs by

2015 when Mt. Hope projected to be in full production.

• Moly use recovered and grew 18% in 2010 and 13% in 2011 (IMOA)

• Demand forecast to grow 5.5% CAGR through 2020 to reach over 800 million pounds annually

World Moly Demand

• Supported by global steel demand growth (~3.5% CAGR) and growing intensity of use

869

800

1,000

World Moly Demand

537

200

400

600

02011p 2012p 2013p 2014p 2015p 2016p 2017p 2018p 2019p 2020p 10

Energy Complex Key to Demand

• Moly use is 40% energy related with Transportation consuming another 20%

• More sophisticated energy production and transportation driving moly usedriving moly use

• Examples include:• Shale Gas Production• Off-shore / deep-ocean oil production• Off-shore / deep-ocean oil production• LNG development

• JP Morgan forecasts $30 trillion to be spent globally on energyto be spent globally on energy-supply infrastructure by 2035

• JP Morgan says Mo one of 5 key

11

commodities for 21st century1Source: SMR Research

1. Commodities include Moly, Cobalt, Lithium, Indium, & Helium

China Use to Drive Global Demand• China consumes ~31% of moly consumed today, while consuming 45-50%China consumes 31% of moly consumed today, while consuming 45 50%

of Aluminum & Copper consumed today• China also produces & consumes 45-50% of global steel

• China focused on increasing stainless & specialty steel products• China focused on increasing stainless & specialty steel products• $23 billion in new steel facilities approved

• JPMorgan forecasts China commodity consumption to approach 65% of global consumption in next 10 20 years

65%70%

China’s Share of Commodity Use Today & in 20 Years

global consumption in next 10-20 years

45-50%

40%

50%

60%

31%

20%

30%

0%

10%

China Moly 2011 China Al, Cu, & Steel 2011

China 2020-2030 Commodity

12Source: IMOA, JP Morgan Research

Marginal Cost Limits Price Downside$40 Historic Moly Prices

$35

Historic Moly Prices (January 2008 - September 2012)

Strong global growth supports

$30+ /lb moly prices

Financial crisis$25

$30

Financial crisis causes prices to

collapse

Global uncertainty cause prices to drift

sideways

$20

Ex-China demand recovery supports prices further

y

$10

$15Marginal Cost of Chinese Production

Softer macro environment

Chinese buying & marginal production shuttered support

price recovery

$5

weakens demand offset by supply

reductions in China

13Source: Ryan’s Notes, Company Estimates

$0

CPM Near-Term Price Forecast• “A balanced market with price upside tied to Supply & DemandA balanced market with price upside tied to Supply & Demand

Fundamentals”

• Declining inventory levels

• Price forecast in the $15-$20 range through 2014

14Source: CPM Group

Source: CPM Group

General Moly Capital StructureStock on Issue

GMO Sh P i V lShares Outstanding 91.2 MWarrants1 1.0 MEquity Compensation1 3.3 MDiluted Shares 95.5 M

Balance Sheet (6/30/2012) 3.5

4$5

GMO Share Price, Volume (Rolling One Year)

Balance Sheet (6/30/2012)Cash on Hand 28 MDebt 10 M

Top Owners1. Hanlong 11.88M shares 13.0% FD2. Coghill Capital Mgmt 8.55M shares 9.4% FD 2.5

3

3.5

$4

s$/sh

)

g p g3. APERAM 8.26M shares 9.1% FD4. Vanguard Group 3.63M shares 4.0% FD5. BlackRock Trust Co. 3.62M shares 4.0% FD6. Harbinger Group 1.40M shares 1.5% FD7. Dimensional Fund 1.34M shares 1.5% FD8. David Russell 1.29M shares 1.3% FD 9 Bruce Hansen 1 20M shares 1 3% FD 1 5

2

2.5

$2

$3

Volu

me,

Mill

ions

MO

Sha

re P

rice

($

9. Bruce Hansen 1.20M shares 1.3% FD10. State Street Global 1.91M shares 1.3% FD

Analyst CoverageBank of America Merrill Lynch David Forster CIBC Ian ParkinsonDahlman Rose Anthony Young 0 5

1

1.5

$1G

M

y gJohn Tumazos VIR John TumazosRBC Fraser PhillipsStifel Nicolaus Paul Massoud

Average Target Price $4.26 per share

0

0.5

$0

15

Insider OwnershipDirectors & Mgmt 16.84M shares2 17.6% FD

1. Includes warrants and equity compensation that are “out of the money”2. Actual ownership; does not include non-exercised equity compensation. Includes Hanlong’s shares

General Moly Overview

Two world-class molybdenum assets

Near-term Producer ✖ Mt. Hope – One of the largest and highest-grade moly assets

currently under development

Meaningful Follow-on Project ✖

Properties in Mining Friendly Jurisdictions ✖

Liberty – a solid follow-on project to make General Moly the largest primary moly producer in the world

Both assets located in Nevada, USA

Significant Strategic Partnerships ✖

S b i l Off k A ✖

Partnerships with Hanlong, POSCO, APERAM, SeAH Besteeland Sojitz Corporation support financing and off-take

100% itt d fi t fiSubstantial Off-take Agreements ✖

Permitting Program Progressing ✖

100% committed first five years

Full permit receipt anticipated H2 2012

Compelling Valuation ✖

Financing Arranged ✖ Transaction with Hanlong provides substantially all funding

required for Mt. Hope development1; Expect ~$930 million in fi i t l ft it i d l t thi

Trading at 20-25% of NPV @ $15/lb moly

161. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring

financing to close after permits received later this year

Appendix

17

Experienced Team - Management•CEO at General Moly since 2007B H CEO at General Moly since 2007.•Previously served in multiple executive roles at Newmont Mining including Chief Financial Officer and Senior VP, Operations Services & Development. Prior to that, was Senior VP of Corporate Development for Santa Fe Pacific Gold.

Bruce HansenChief Executive Officer

•CFO at General Moly since 2007.•More than 30 years of financial and operational experience in the metals andDave Chaput •More than 30 years of financial and operational experience in the metals and mining industry, previously serving as CFO of The Doe Run Resources Corporation.

Dave ChaputChief Financial Officer

•25 years experience in plant operations and 6 years in design engineering firm. •Previously served as general manager of one of the largest open-pit/concentrator

Bob Penningtone ous y se ed as ge e a a age o o e o t e a gest ope p t/co ce t ato

operations in the world, the Phelps Dodge Morenci mine in Arizona.Chief Operating Officer

•Joined General Moly in 2007; has served as Controller, Treasurer and principal accounting officer since 2009.

•Formerly the Director of Supply Chain - Nevada Operations for Newmont Mining; Lee Shumway

Controller prior roles with Santa Fe Pacific Gold and Price Waterhouse.Controller

•25 years industry experience, including extensive work within the state of Nevada. •Previously served as Operations Environmental Permitting Manager with Newmont Mining.

Pat RogersVP Permitting &

Environmental Compliance

•30 years of mining experience, predominately in Nevada.•Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp’s Marigold Mine and General Manager at Round Mountain Mine, a Barrick Gold and Kinross Gold joint-venture.

Mike Iannacchione VP & GM Mt. Hope

18

•25 years industry experience, including 21 years with Phelps Dodge and Freeport McMoran.

•Previously served as Assistant General Manager of Concentrator Operations at Cerro Verde, a large copper and molybdenum mine in Peru.

Fred ZumwaltMt. Hope Mill Manager

Permitting Mt. Hope in Nevada, USAPermitting in Nevada: Permitting Advantages for Mt HopePermitting in Nevada:

1. Top-ranked US mining jurisdiction & top 10 ranked global mining

Permitting Advantages for Mt. Hope project:

1. No Threatened or Endangered S i& top 10 ranked global mining

jurisdiction (Fraser Institute).

2. Nevada has long mining history

Species

2. No sacred Native American sites2. Nevada has long mining history

with no permits denied in last 20 years

3. No wetlands or Waters of the US (limits EPA involvement)

4 Experienced permitting team led by3. US BLM committed to reducing

agency delays

4. Experienced permitting team led by Pat Rogers (ex-Newmont)

4. Battle Mountain Division of BLM has approved many large mines (ABX, NEM)

195. Supportive State and Federal Government Representatives

China Development Bank

CDB L PCDB Loan Process

Major loan terms confirmed (Feb 2012)• $665 million term loan with CDB lending 60% & syndicating balanceg y g• 12 years including 30-month grace period for construction• Hanlong corporate guarantee• Customary loan covenants, security terms

CDB hiring Western counsel (March 2012)• GMO uses Shearman & Sterling

Detailed term sheet negotiations (May-September)

Final loan documentation & approvals (October-December)

Loan Availability (Post ROD)

20

Mt. Hope Financing – Funding Sources & UsesSources $m Uses $mEureka Moly: Eureka Moly

21As of June 30, 2012

Water Rights HistoryMt. Hope Water Well MapMt. Hope water right historyp g y

• Project requires ~7,000 gpm fresh water for milling operations

• Company purchased from existing water holders• Company purchased from existing water holders in Kobeh Valley, essentially all available water rights, sufficient for project water requirements

• Nevada State Engineer granted us water

Mt. Hope Water Impact Map

permits in March 2009. That ruling was successfully appealed in a Nevada District Court in April 2010

• Company re-applied for water rights andCompany re applied for water rights and Nevada State Engineer granted the applications in a second ruling in July 2011

• That ruling has again been appealed and a court h i h ld A il 3 2012hearing was held April 3, 2012.

• Nevada State District Court affirmed the State Engineer’s ruling in all respects June 14, 2012

22

• Two parties appeal to NV Supreme Court GMO considers appeals w/o merit

Equipment Procurement Status• Approximately $67m paid on commitments forApproximately $67m paid on commitments for

$164 million in equipment orders

• Major milling equipment secured: Own or have orders in place for Mt. Hope crusher, SAG mill & ball mill mill drives and roaster equipmentball mill, mill drives, and roaster equipment

• Made $75 commitment to Caterpillar for haul fleet and support equipment, including 18 CAT 793F haul trucks

• Have letter of intent in place for large electric mining shovels

• 4 Atlas Copco mine drills ordered• 4 Atlas Copco mine drills ordered

• As progress on permitting and financing continues, will place orders for remainder of equipment.

23

Moly Use: First vs. Second

24Source: SMR Research Source: SMR Research

High Levels of Energy Investment

25Source: JP Morgan Research