Are there any contingent liabilities, environmental or permitting risks associated with the Quartz Mountain Project that could affect future cash flows?

Short answer:

The corporate‑update press release that was released on August 8 2025 does not disclose any contingent liabilities, environmental liabilities, or permitting risks related to the Quartz Mountain Project. Consequently, based on the information that was made public in this release, there is no specific indication of risks that would directly affect the Project’s future cash flows.

Why the release contains no explicit risk disclosure

What this means for an analyst / investor

1. Absence of evidence ≠ absence of risk

   • The lack of disclosed contingent, environmental, or permitting risks in this particular press release does not guarantee that such risks do not exist. It simply means the company chose not to highlight them in this brief corporate update.

2. Where to look for a fuller picture

   • SEDAR filings – The release itself points readers to the company’s SEDAR+ profile (www.sedarplus.ca). The Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A), Risk Factors, and Notes to the Financial Statements in the most recent interim or annual reports are the typical places where a mining‑focused company would disclose:
     • Known environmental liabilities (e.g., reclamation bonds, legacy waste).
     • Contingent liabilities tied to the acquisition (e.g., earn‑out payments, indemnities for Alamos).
     • Permitting status, outstanding applications, or known regulatory challenges.
   • Technical Reports / NI 43‑101 filings – These often contain a “Regulatory and Environmental” section that describes required permits and any known obstacles.
   • Press releases after the acquisition – Subsequent updates (e.g., drilling results, community engagement, permit applications) may flag new or evolving risks.

3. Typical risk categories for a project of this nature (useful as a checklist when you dig deeper):

   • Regulatory / permitting – State or federal mining permits, water‑right allocations, air‑quality permits, cultural‑heritage clearances.
   • Environmental – Baseline studies, required reclamation plans, potential for groundwater contamination, tailings‑facility design & bonding.
   • Contingent financial obligations – Earn‑out or milestone payments to Alamos, indemnities for any pre‑existing environmental work, escrow or hold‑back arrangements.
   • Third‑party claims – Land‑owner or tribal claims, litigation relating to past exploration activities, or disputes over access rights.
   • Community/social licence – Agreements with local communities, Indigenous groups, or NGOs that could affect project timelines.

4. Potential cash‑flow impact if such risks were to materialize

   • Permitting delays can postpone drilling, resource delineation, and ultimately the start‑up of any mining operation, extending the cash‑burn period.
   • Environmental remediation or reclamation bonds can be sizable (often 10‑30 % of estimated capital cost) and may need to be posted before a mine can be permitted.
   • Contingent payments tied to production milestones could become a cash outflow even if the project is not yet cash‑generating.
   • Legal or community disputes can lead to injunctions, fines, or forced redesigns, each carrying direct cost and indirect timing impacts.

Bottom line

• Based purely on the August 8 2025 corporate update: No contingent liabilities, environmental liabilities, or permitting risks are disclosed for the Quartz Mountain Project.
• For a reliable risk assessment: Review Q‑Gold’s recent MD&A, NI 43‑101 technical reports, and any subsequent press releases. Those documents will contain any material risk factors that could affect future cash flows. Until those sources are examined, an analyst should treat the risk profile as unknown rather than non‑existent.