Nevada King Gold Corp. (TSX-V: NKG) (OTCQB: NKGFF)  is pleased to report results from its Phase 2 metallurgical testing program at its 12,000 hectare (120km²), 100% owned Atlanta Gold Mine Project, located in the prolific Battle Mountain Trend 264km northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. Phase 2 results confirm and expand on the Phase 1 results (released March 26, 2024), while delivering a more simplified flowsheet with potential for lower operating and initial capital costs, and continuing to demonstrate that gold and silver mineralization at Atlanta is well suited to conventional oxide processing methods widely used in Nevada.

Highlights:

• Robust Recoveries: Combined, Phase 1 and 2 test work consistently demonstrated strong gold recoveries across key mineralized units using both fine milling and heap leaching methods.
  • Fine milling (200-mesh grind, P80 = 75 µm) shows a weighted average gold extraction of 90.1% for the non-silicified volcanics, 86.1% for the silicified volcanics, and 87.7% for the silica breccia (SBX).
  • Column leaching of conventional crushed (combined P80 = 12.5 & 25.0 mm columns) shows a weighted average extraction of 83.1% for the non-silicified volcanics (heap leachable).
• Dual Recovery Pathways: Results continue to support a development path utilizing conventional milling for higher-grade material, while lower-grade, non-silicified volcanics are suitable for run of mine heap leaching.
• Simplified Flowsheet: The revised proposed flowsheet has been simplified and is expected to result in lower operating and initial capital costs by replacing three-stage crushing with a primary and secondary crusher and eliminating the convey-stack process. Additionally, while the prior flowsheet envisioned two separate heap leach processes, the new simplified flowsheet includes just one, consisting exclusively of ROM material.
• Comprehensive Test Program: Phase 2 tested 26 drill core composites, adding to the 22 drill core composites and three bulk samples tested in Phase 1, which together provide a comprehensive dataset of the various lithologies and grade ranges found throughout the Atlanta resource.

Phase 2 metallurgical test work at Atlanta has been supervised by Gary Simmons (MMSA QP Number: 01013QP), formerly the Director of Metallurgy and Technology for Newmont Mining Corp. Mr. Simmons also supervised the Phase 1 metallurgical test work at Atlanta and has managed numerous metallurgical testing programs in the Great Basin with characteristics similar to those found at Atlanta.

Mr. Simmons commented, “The Phase 2 results refine the findings from Phase 1, that conventional oxide milling of the silicified volcanics, SBX and dolomite material types will be suitable to process the Atlanta mineralization. The non-silicified volcanics are amenable to conventional ROM heap leaching.

“The inclusion of HPGR will provide a relatively lower overall operating cost for SBX compared to alternatives such as a SAG/Ball mill processing. The Phase 2 testing provided additional clarity on the metallurgical characteristics of a wider variety of rock type subunits included in the resource area and is another step in de-risking the Atlanta Gold Mine project.”

Test Results Summary:

The Atlanta resource is generally categorized into two distinct categories for the purposes of metallurgical testing of gold and silver extraction. There is the SBX (mineralized material in and below the main Atlanta unconformity) and the volcanics (mineralized material above the main Atlanta unconformity). Of the 26 composites tested in Phase 2, 17 were within or below the unconformity representing SBX material and nine were within the volcanics. A higher ratio of samples of SBX material was used in Phase 2,compared to nearly equal samples from SBX and volcanics in Phase 1, to improve the understanding of the SBX material and the metallurgical characteristics of the subunits.

Table 1. Summary Phase 1 and 2 Atlanta laboratory gold extraction results, average gold bottle roll & column leach tests with average gold and silver grade.

Phase 2 metallurgical test work emphasized testing SBX material, located below or in the unconformity, due to the hard and abrasive nature which has a high degree of sensitivity to process feed particle size. This material can be processed utilizing High Pressure Grinding Rolls comminution followed by fine milling.

The non-silicified volcanics sit above the unconformity and typically show higher recoveries and less sensitivity to particle size for processing. The volcanics are amenable to processing via conventional milling, or ROM heap leaching, with the grade and future economic analysis being the primary determinant on processing method.

Gold extraction at a typical fine grind of 75 µm remained strong for all material types through Phase 2 results, reinforcing the amenability to conventional cyanidation.

HPGR comminution of SBX material, followed by column leaching, shows that this material is not suitable for heap leaching, due to its lower gold extraction versus testing in Phase 1. This material showed a weighted average gold extraction of 56.1% at 3.66 g/t Au.

Overall, Phase 2 closely mirrors Phase 1 in grade, extraction behavior, and composition and validates the Phase 1 results, with high cyanide solubility across both phases. Phase 2 also confirmed negligible preg-robbing, so it remains a non-issue after both phases. Fine grinding remains very effective across all lithologies.

Phase 1 and 2 combined gold extraction from fine milling at a 200 mesh grind (P80=75µm) show a weighted average gold extraction of:

• 90.1% for the non-silicified volcanics at an average head grade of 2.71 g/t Au
• 86.1% for the silicified volcanics at an average head grade of 2.80 g/t Au
• 87.7% for the SBX at an average head grade of 3.23 g/t Au
• 80.6% for the dolomite at average head grade 0.32 g/t Au

Phase 1 and 2 combined gold extraction from conventional crushing (P80=12.5 + 25.0 mm columns) show a weighted average gold extraction of:

• 83.1% for non-silicified volcanics (to be processed via heap leach) at an average head grade of 2.56 g/t Au
• 55.9% for silicified volcanics at an average head grade 2.83 g/t Au (to be processed via milling)
• 52.0% for the dolomite at an average head grade of 0.30 g/t Au
• SBX materials are not suitable for heap leaching due to the low weighted average gold extraction

Phase 1 and 2 combined silver extraction from fine milling at a 200 mesh grind (P80=75µm) show a weighted average silver extraction of:

• 58.1% for non-silicified volcanics at an average head grade of 25.0 g/t Ag
• 28.2% for silicified volcanics at an average head grade of 7.4 g/t Ag
• 43.9% for SBX at an average head grade of 26.0 g/t Ag
• 23.3% for dolomite at an average head grade of 23.2 g/t Ag

Table 1 below provides a summary of laboratory metallurgy gold extraction test results from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 and distinguishes between the materials tested above and below the Atlanta unconformity indicating whether the mineralization is in volcanics or silicified breccias, while Table 2 does the same for silver.

Table 2. Summary Atlanta metallurgical results from Phase 1 and 2, gold bottle roll & column leach tests

Table 3. Summary Atlanta metallurgical results from Phase 1 and 2, silver bottle roll & column leach tests

QA/QC Protocols

All PQ-diameter core was sampled in the Company’s warehouse in Winnemucca, Nevada, with whole core samples being placed in heavy canvas bags and sent to American Assay Lab in Reno, Nevada, in heavy shipping bags by a Company contractor with full custody being maintained at all times. CRF standards and coarse blanks were inserted into the sample stream on a one-in-twenty sample basis, meaning both inserts are included in each 20-sample group. At American Assay Lab, samples were weighted, and then completely crushed to -1 inch. The coarse-crushed sample was quarter-split and one quarter was reduced to 75% passing 2mm. A 300g split was subsequently pulverized to 85% passing 75 microns. Prepared samples are initially run using a four acid + boric acid digestion process and conventional multi-element ICP-OES analysis. Gold assays are initially run using 30-gram samples by lead fire assay with an OES finish to a 0.003 ppm detection limit, with samples greater than 10 ppm finished gravimetrically. Every sample is also run through a cyanide leach for gold with an ICP-OES finish. The QA/QC procedure involves regular submission of Certified Analytical Standards and property-specific duplicates.

Qualified Person

The scientific and technical information in this news release has been reviewed and approved by Calvin R. Herron, P.Geo., who is a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101.

About Nevada King Gold Corp.

Nevada King is focused on advancing and growing its 100% owned, past producing, 120km² Atlanta Gold Mine project located along the Battle Mountain trend in southeast Nevada. The project hosts an NI 43-101 compliant pit-constrained oxide resource of 1,020koz Au in the measured and indicated category (27.7M tonnes at 1.14 g/t) plus an inferred resource of 98.5koz Au (3.6M tonnes at 0.84 g/t) that replaces the Gustavson 2020 resource summarized below (see the NI 43-101 Technical Report on Resources titled “Atlanta Property, Lincoln County, NV” with an effective date of October 6, 2020, and a report date of December 22, 2020, as prepared by Gustavson Associates and filed under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ www.sedarplus.ca).

Previous NI 43-101 Mineral Resources at the Atlanta Mine by Gustavson 2020

NI 43-101 Mineral Resources at the Atlanta Mine by RESPEC 2025

Figure 1. Revised Atlanta generalized flowsheet after Phase 2 metallurgical testing (CNW Group/Nevada King Gold Corp.)

Figure 2. Location of large diameter core holes and bulk samples used in Phase 1 and 2 metallurgical testing (CNW Group/Nevada King Gold Corp.)