##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 þ Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934   o Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
  Commission file number 1-11887 CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) I.R.S. Employer Identification Number 84-0800747 14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 250
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 278-8464 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as
defined in Rule 2b-2 of the Exchange Act.) Yes þ No o Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes
of common stock, as of the latest practicable date: 34,510,529 shares of
the Companys Common Stock were outstanding as of May 3, 2005.




---



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q
For the Quarter ended March 31, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATIONItem 1.
    
    Financial Statements
    
    Page 1Item 2.
    
    Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
    
    Page 17Item 3.
    
    Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
    
    Page 25Item 4.
    
    Controls and Procedures
    
    Page 25PART II OTHER INFORMATIONItem 1.
    
    Legal Proceedings
    
    Page 27Item 2.
    
    Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities And use of Proceeds
    
    Page 27Item 3.
    
    Defaults Upon Senior Securities
    
    Page 27Item 4.
    
    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
    
    Page 27Item 5.
    
    Other Information
    
    Page 27Item 6.
    
    Exhibits
    
    Page 27SIGNATURES
    
    
    
    Page 30Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 302Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 302Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 906Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 906




---



##### Table of Contents



PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION 
 Item 1. Financial Statements The following consolidated financial statements have been prepared by Canyon Resources
Corporation (the Company) pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial
statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been condensed
or omitted pursuant to such SEC rules and regulations. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial
statements and accompanying notes included in the Companys Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004. Consolidated Balance Sheets
    
    Page 2Consolidated Statements of Operations
    
    Page 3Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
    
    Page 4-5Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders Equity
    
    Page 6Notes to Interim Consolidated Financial Statements
    
    Page 7-16Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
    
    Page 17Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
    
    Page 25Item 4. Controls and Procedures
    
    Page 25
 1




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
 March 31,
    
    
    December 31,2005
    
    
    2004ASSETSCash and cash equivalents
    
    $
    6,234,600
    
    
    $
    4,638,300Restricted cash
    
    
    274,800
    
    
    
    274,800Accounts receivable
    
    
    219,600
    
    
    
    769,000Metal inventories
    
    
    1,381,700
    
    
    
    1,906,400Prepaid and other assets
    
    
    153,500
    
    
    
    153,400Total current assets
    
    
    8,264,200
    
    
    
    7,741,900Property and equipment, at costProducing properties
    
    
    6,443,500
    
    
    
    6,443,500Other
    
    
    657,900
    
    
    
    643,1007,101,400
    
    
    
    7,086,600Accumulated depreciation and depletion
    
    
    (5,689,400
    )
    
    
    (5,667,700
    )Net property and equipment
    
    
    1,412,000
    
    
    
    1,418,900Undeveloped mineral claims and leases, net
    
    
    12,691,500
    
    
    
    13,359,500Restricted cash
    
    
    2,856,400
    
    
    
    2,847,300Other assets
    
    
    247,400
    
    
    
    247,400Total Assets
    
    $
    25,471,500
    
    
    $
    25,615,000LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITYAccounts payable
    
    $
    364,500
    
    
    $
    446,300Notes payable  current
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,412,700Capital leases  current
    
    
    28,900
    
    
    
    32,900Asset retirement obligations
    
    
    2,007,700
    
    
    
    2,007,700Payroll liabilities
    
    
    226,100
    
    
    
    250,900Other current liabilities
    
    
    115,600
    
    
    
    129,300Total current liabilities
    
    
    2,742,800
    
    
    
    5,279,800Notes payable  long term
    
    
    825,000
    
    
    
    Asset retirement obligations
    
    
    3,883,500
    
    
    
    4,231,200Total Liabilities
    
    
    7,451,300
    
    
    
    9,511,000Commitments and contingencies (Note 10)Common stock ($.01 par value) 50,000,000 shares authorized;
issued and outstanding: 34,510,500 at March 31, 2005, and
29,207,600 at December 31, 2004
    
    
    345,100
    
    
    
    292,100Capital in excess of par value
    
    
    131,779,300
    
    
    
    127,608,200Retained deficit
    
    
    (114,104,200
    )
    
    
    (111,796,300
    )Total Stockholders Equity
    
    
    18,020,200
    
    
    
    16,104,000Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
    
    $
    25,471,500
    
    
    $
    25,615,000
 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 2




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
 Three months ended March 31,2005
    
    
    2004REVENUESales
    
    $
    1,002,200
    
    
    $
    1,737,500EXPENSESCost of sales (exclusive of depreciation, depletion, and amortization)
    
    
    1,130,200
    
    
    
    2,355,100Depreciation, depletion, and amortization
    
    
    909,900
    
    
    
    1,102,600Selling, general and administrative
    
    
    608,500
    
    
    
    1,998,300Exploration and development costs
    
    
    171,300
    
    
    
    214,400Accretion expense
    
    
    33,500
    
    
    
    43,300Debenture conversion expense
    
    
    448,200
    
    
    
    3,301,600
    
    
    
    5,713,700OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE)Interest income
    
    
    32,700
    
    
    
    15,500Interest expense
    
    
    (41,200
    )
    
    
    (74,000
    )Gain on derivative instruments
    
    
    
    
    
    
    147,200Other
    
    
    
    
    
    
    11,000(8,500
    )
    
    
    99,700Net loss
    
    
    ($2,307,900
    )
    
    
    ($3,876,500
    )Basic and diluted net loss per share
    
    
    ($0.08
    )
    
    
    ($0.15
    )Weighted average shares outstanding
    
    
    30,268,200
    
    
    
    26,377,900
 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 3




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
 Three months ended March 31,2005
    
    
    2004Cash flows from operating activities:Net loss
    
    ($
    2,307,900
    )
    
    ($
    3,876,500
    )Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
used in operating activities:Depreciation, depletion and amortization
    
    
    909,900
    
    
    
    1,102,600Amortization of beneficial conversion feature
    
    
    11,300
    
    
    
    15,300Debenture conversion expense
    
    
    448,200
    
    
    
    Inventory impairment
    
    
    128,200
    
    
    
    552,300Gain on derivative instruments
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (147,200
    )Non-cash compensation expense
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,339,100Interest accretion
    
    
    33,500
    
    
    
    43,300Changes in operating assets and liabilities:Decrease in accounts receivable
    
    
    549,400
    
    
    
    94,800Decrease (increase) in inventories
    
    
    176,300
    
    
    
    (1,319,900
    )Increase in prepaid and other assets
    
    
    (100
    )
    
    
    (323,200
    )(Decrease) increase in accounts payable and other
current liabilities
    
    
    (120,300
    )
    
    
    224,100Decrease in
asset retirement obligations
    
    
    (381,200
    )
    
    
    (75,100
    )Increase in
restricted cash
    
    
    (9,100
    )
    
    
    (4,700
    )Total adjustments
    
    
    1,746,100
    
    
    
    1,501,400Net cash used in operating activities
    
    
    (561,800
    )
    
    
    (2,375,100
    )Cash flows from investing activities:Purchases and development of property and equipment
    
    
    (14,800
    )
    
    
    (381,200
    )Net cash used in investing activities
    
    
    (14,800
    )
    
    
    (381,200
    )Cash flows from financing activities:Issuance of common stock and warrants
    
    
    3,100,900
    
    
    
    7,947,700Payments on debt
    
    
    (924,000
    )
    
    
    Payments on capital lease obligations
    
    
    (4,000
    )
    
    
    (4,900
    )Net cash provided by financing activities
    
    
    2,172,900
    
    
    
    7,942,800Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
    
    
    1,596,300
    
    
    
    5,186,500Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year
    
    
    4,638,300
    
    
    
    4,139,800Cash and cash equivalents, end of period
    
    $
    6,234,600
    
    
    $
    9,326,300
 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 4




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, continued
(Unaudited) Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:  1.
    The Company paid $29,900 of interest during the first three months of 2005, and $58,700
during the corresponding period of 2004.2.
    The Company paid no income taxes during the first three months of 2005 nor the
corresponding period of 2004. Supplemental schedule of noncash investing and financing activities:  1.
    During the first three months of 2004, the Company issued 52,300 shares of common stock
with a fair value of $79,400 to an employee as compensation for services.2.
    Non-cash compensation expense for the Companys stock option plans under variable plan
accounting was $1,259,700 during the first three months of 2004.3.
    During the first three months of 2005, debenture holders representing $675,000 of
principal converted to common shares and warrants at a lower price than the original
conversion price, resulting in a conversion expense of $448,200. The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 5




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
 Common Stock
    
    
    Capital in
    
    
    
    
    
    
    TotalNumber of
    
    
    At Par
    
    
    Excess of Par
    
    
    Retained
    
    
    StockholdersShares
    
    
    Value
    
    
    Value
    
    
    Deficit
    
    
    EquityBalances, January 1, 2005
    
    
    29,207,600
    
    
    $
    292,100
    
    
    $
    127,608,200
    
    
    
    ($111,796,300
    )
    
    $
    16,104,000Stock issued for cash, net of
issuance costs of $47,500
    
    
    4,366,700
    
    
    
    43,700
    
    
    
    3,057,200
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,100,900Debentures converted into stock
    
    
    936,200
    
    
    
    9,300
    
    
    
    665,700
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    675,000Debenture conversion expense
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    448,200
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    448,200Comprehensive lossNet loss
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (2,307,900
    )
    
    
    (2,307,900
    )Other comprehensive loss
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Comprehensive loss
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (2,307,900
    )
    
    
    (2,307,900
    )Balances, March 31, 2005
    
    
    34,510,500
    
    
    $
    345,100
    
    
    $
    131,779,300
    
    
    
    ($114,104,200
    )
    
    $
    18,020,200
 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 6




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION 
 NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
 (Unaudited)
  1.
    Basis of Presentation: During interim periods, Canyon Resources Corporation (the Company) follows the accounting
policies set forth in its Annual Report to Stockholders and its Report on Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Users of financial information produced for interim periods are
encouraged to refer to the footnotes contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders when reviewing
interim financial results. In the opinion of management, the accompanying interim financial statements contain all
material adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments necessary to present fairly
the consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of Canyon Resources
Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries for interim periods. These interim results are not
necessarily indicative of the results of operations or cash flows for the full year ending December
31, 2005.  2.
    Management Estimates and Assumptions: Certain amounts included in or affecting the Companys financial statements and related
disclosures must be estimated, requiring that certain assumptions be made with respect to values or
conditions which cannot be made with certainty at the time the financial statements are prepared.
Therefore, the reported amounts of the Companys assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and
associated disclosures with respect to contingent assets and obligations are necessarily affected
by these estimates. The Company evaluates these estimates on an ongoing basis, utilizing historical
experience, consultation with experts, and other methods considered reasonable in the particular
circumstances. Nevertheless, actual results may differ significantly from the Companys estimates.  3.
    Stock Based Compensation: In accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
(SFAS No. 123), the Company measures compensation cost using the intrinsic value method prescribed
by Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and
related interpretations to account for its stock option plans. However, because the Company had
allowed option holders through June 30, 2004 to exercise options by surrendering shares underlying
vested but unexercised options in payment of the exercise price of the options, the Companys
outstanding options were accounted for using variable plan accounting for the prior period. As a
result, while no compensation cost was recognized at the grant date, as the exercise price of all
stock option grants was at least equal to 100% of the market price of the Companys common stock as
of the date of grant, subsequent changes in the market price of the Companys stock to the date of
exercise or forfeiture resulted in a change in the measure of compensation cost for the award being
recognized. In December 2002, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Financial Accounting
Standards No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation  Transition and Disclosure(SFAS No.
148). SFAS No. 148 amends SFAS No. 123 to provide alternative methods of transition for a
voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee
compensation. In addition, SFAS No. 148 amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to
require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of
accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported
results. The amendments to SFAS No. 123 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years ending
after December 15, 2002. Had compensation cost been determined under the provisions of SFAS No.
123, the following pro forma net loss and per share amounts would have been recorded for the three
months ended March 31: 7




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  3.
    Stock Based Compensation, continued: 2005
    
    
    
    2004Net loss, as reported
    
    
    
    ($2,307,900
    )
    
    
    
    ($3,876,500
    )Add: compensation expense
determined under
variable plan accounting
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,259,700Deduct: compensation expense
determined under fair value based method
    
    
    
    (88,500
    )
    
    
    
    (16,200
    )Pro forma net loss
    
    
    
    ($2,396,400
    )
    
    
    
    ($2,633,000
    )Basic and diluted loss per share As reported
    
   
    
    ($0.08
    )
    
    
    
    ($0.15
    ) Pro forma
    
    
    
    ($0.08
    )
    
    
    
    ($0.10
    )
  4.
    Earnings Per Share (EPS): The Company computes EPS by applying the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128,
Earnings per Share. As the Company reported net losses for the periods presented, inclusion of
common stock equivalents would have an antidilutive effect on per share amounts. Accordingly, the
Companys basic and diluted EPS computations are the same for the periods presented. Common stock
equivalents for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004 that were not included in the
computation of diluted EPS because the effect would have been antidilutive were 5,706,000 and
6,787,900, respectively.  5.
    Equity On March 15, 2005, the Company completed a financing which raised $3,101,000 through the sale
of 4,366,734 units. Each unit consisted of one share of common stock and 0.5 warrant. The warrant
has a three year term which cannot be exercised before September 22, 2005 and expires March 14,
2008 with an exercise price of $1.03 per share. The shares were registered through a shelf
registration statement. The warrants and the shares obtained through the exercise of the warrants
have not been registered. Aggregate proceeds of approximately $2.7 million would be realized and
unregistered shares would be delivered on exercise of these warrants. The relative fair value of
the new warrants issued was $480,000 and this amount is included in Capital in Excess of Par Value
in the Statement of Changes in Stockholders Equity. 8




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  6.
    Restricted Cash: Restricted cash consisted of the following at: March 31,
    
    
    
    December 31,2005
    
    
    
    2004Collateral for Letter of Credit(a)
    
    
    $
    249,000
    
    
    
    $
    249,000Collateral for reclamation bonds and other contingent events(b)
    
    
    
    153,000
    
    
    
    
    152,400Kendall Mine reclamation(c)
    
    
    
    1,954,400
    
    
    
    
    1,945,900McDonald Gold Project cash reclamation bond(d)
    
    
    
    500,000
    
    
    
    
    500,000Net proceeds from property sales(e)
    
    
    
    274,800
    
    
    
    
    274,8003,131,200
    
    
    
    
    3,122,100Current portion
    
    
    
    274,800
    
    
    
    
    274,800Noncurrent portion
    
    
    $
    2,856,400
    
    
    
    $
    2,847,300
   (a)
    
    In connection with the issuance of certain bonds for the
performance of reclamation obligations and other contingent events at the Briggs
Mine, a bank Letter of Credit was provided in favor of the Surety as partial
collateral for such bond obligations. The Letter of Credit is fully
collateralized with cash and will expire no earlier than December 31, 2005, and
at the banks option, may be renewed for successive one-year periods.(b)
    
    Held directly by the Surety as partial collateral for reclamation and
other contingent events at the Briggs Mine.(c)
    
    Held directly by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality in an
interest bearing account for use in continuing reclamation at the Kendall
minesite. (See Note 10(a)).(d)
    
    Held directly by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for
reclamation at the McDonald Gold Property.(e)
    
    In connection with the auction of certain properties, cash has been
sequestered by court order. (See Note 10(f)).  7.
    Inventories: Metal inventories consisted of the following at: March 31, 2005
    
    
    
    December 31, 2004Broken ore under leach
    
    
    $
    1,168,800
    
    
    
    $
    1,805,700Doré
    
    
    
    212,900
    
    
    
    
    100,700$
    1,381,700
    
    
    
    $
    1,906,400
 The Company wrote down its metal inventory at the Briggs Mine to net realizable value by
$128,200 and $552,300 during the first quarter of 2005 and 2004, respectively, due to a combination
of high operating costs and lower production. 9




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  8.
    Undeveloped Mineral Claims and Leases: The carrying value of the Companys undeveloped mineral claims and leases consists of the
following components at: March 31, 2005
    
    
    
    December 31, 2004Gross
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    GrossCarrying
    
    
    
    Accumulated
    
    
    
    Net Book
    
    
    
    Carrying
    
    
    
    Accumulated
    
    
    
    Net BookValue
    
    
    
    Amortization
    
    
    
    Value
    
    
    
    Value
    
    
    
    Amortization
    
    
    
    ValueProperty:Mcdonald
    
    
    $
    16,200,200
    
    
    
    
    ($6,581,300
    )
    
    
    $
    9,618,900
    
    
    
    $
    16,200,200
    
    
    
    
    ($6,075,000
    )
    
    
    $
    10,125,200Seven-up Pete
    
    
    
    5,175,000
    
    
    
    
    (2,102,400
    )
    
    
    
    3,072,600
    
    
    
    
    5,175,000
    
    
    
    
    (1,940,700
    )
    
    
    
    3,234,300$
    21,375,200
    
    
    
    
    ($8,683,700
    )
    
    
    $
    12,691,500
    
    
    
    $
    21,375,200
    
    
    
    
    ($8,015,700
    )
    
    
    $
    13,359,500
 Amortization of these properties commenced in 2002 at the rate of $2,671,900 per year.
The properties are being amortized over eight years with no residual value. Future amortization of
$2,671,900 per year will be recognized until the properties are fully amortized or events or
circumstances change. See Notes 10(d and e) for a discussion of the legal status of the properties.  9.
    Notes Payable: Notes payable consisted of the following at: March 31, 2005
    
    
    
    December 31, 2004Debentures(a)
    
    
    $
    825,000
    
    
    
    $
    2,424,000- discount
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (11,300
    )825,000
    
    
    
    
    2,412,700Current portion
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,412,700Notes payable -
Noncurrent
    
    
    $
    825,000
    
    
    
    $
    
   (a)
    
    In March 2005, $924,000 of principal was repaid, $675,000 was
converted into stock and $825,000 of the remaining debentures were extended to
March 2011. The debenture holders that converted to common stock were given
terms of $0.721 per unit consisting of one share of common stock and 0.5
warrant. The total number of shares issued for conversion to common stock was
936,200. The number of shares issued was determined by dividing $675,000 by
$0.721 per unit.In March 2003, the Company completed a private placement financing of 6%, two
year convertible debentures, raising $3,299,000. Approximately $1.2 million of
the proceeds was used to pay off the Briggs Mine debt with the balance retained
for general corporate purposes. The debentures require quarterly interest
payments, and the holders have the right to convert principal to common stock of
the Company, subject to certain adjustments, at any time, at a conversion rate of
$1.38 per share of common stock. For certain investors, the common stock had a
fair value at the commitment date in excess of the conversion price resulting in
a beneficial conversion feature. The intrinsic value of the beneficial conversion
was recorded as an addition to paid in capital and a discount on the debt with
the discount then amortized to interest expense over the term of the debt using
the effective interest
method. The discount was fully accreted as of February 28, 2005. The Companys
stock price at the end of March 2005 was $0.72. 10




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  9.
    Notes Payable, continued:  Interest expense for the debentures was approximately $29,300 and $55,300 for
first quarters of 2005 and 2004, respectively. Accretion of the debt discount
included in interest expense was $11,300 and $15,300 for the first quarters of
2005 and 2004, respectively.  10.
    Commitments and Contingencies:  (a)
    Kendall Mine ReclamationThe Kendall Mine holds permits granted by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). In February 2002, the DEQ issued a decision that a comprehensive Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for completion of remaining reclamation at Kendall. The
Company feels that it is crucial that reclamation proceed at Kendall without further
delay and, therefore, disagrees with the agency decision, and is presently evaluating its
course of action with regard to the DEQs decision. The Companys estimate to achieve
mine closure could be impacted by the outcome of an agency decision following an EIS. The
Company has $1,954,400 on deposit in an interest bearing account with the DEQ for
reclamation at the Kendall Mine.(b)
    Briggs Mine Surety BondsThe Briggs Mine operates under permits granted by various agencies including the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Inyo County, the California Department of Conservation,
and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan). These agencies have
jointly required the Company to post a reclamation bond in the amount of $3,030,000 to
ensure appropriate reclamation. Additionally, the Company was required by Lahontan to
post a $1,010,000 bond to ensure adequate funds to mitigate any foreseeable release, as
defined, of pollutants to state waters. Both bonds are subject to annual review and
adjustment.In 2000, in response to a demand for an increase in collateral by the Surety who issued
the above described bonds, the Company granted a security interest in 28,000 acres of
mineral interests in Montana. In addition, the Company agreed to make cash deposits with
the Surety totaling $1.5 million over a three year period at the rate of $0.5 million per
year, commencing June 30, 2001. The Company has not made any deposits to date, and is in
discussions with the Surety to reschedule the deposit requirements. If an acceptable
rescheduling of the deposit requirements cannot be agreed to, the Surety could seek to
terminate the bonds which could result in the Company becoming liable for the principal
amounts under its collateral agreement with the Surety. In April 2004, the Company ceased
active mining at Briggs and commenced reclamation activities.(c)
    Contingent LiabilityOn September 25, 1997, the Company, together with its wholly-owned subsidiary, CR Montana
Corporation (CR Montana), purchased a 72.25% participating interest and underlying
assets in the Seven-Up Pete Venture (SPV) from CR Montanas partner in the SPV,
Phelps Dodge Corporation (Phelps Dodge). The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary now
own 100% of the SPV. The SPV includes the McDonald Gold Project near Lincoln, Montana.The Company made an initial payment of $5 million and is required to make a final payment
of $10.0 million upon issuance of all permits required for construction of the McDonald
Gold Project, or alternatively, one-third of any proceeds received from any potential
takings lawsuit. Due to the contingent nature of the 11




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  10.
    Commitments and Contingencies, continued:  transaction, the Company recorded only the initial payment of $5 million as additions to
mining claims and leases.The purchase payments are collateralized only by the 72.25% participating interest and
underlying assets in the SPV transferred from Phelps Dodge to the Company and CR Montana
in this transaction, and the 50% co-tenancy interest in certain real property also
transferred to the Company and CR Montana.(d)
    Anti-Mining Initiative (I-137)In November 1998, the Montana electorate passed an anti-mining initiative (I-137) by a
vote of 52% to 48%. I-137, as modified by the State Legislature in April 1999, bans
development of new gold and silver mines, which use open-pit mining methods and cyanide
in the treatment and recovery process. In April 2000, the SPV filed lawsuits in Montana
State District Court and in the United States District Court, seeking to have I-137
declared unconstitutional, or, alternatively, to obtain a takings or damage award for
the lost value of the McDonald, Seven-Up Pete and Keep Cool mineral properties. These
lawsuits are based on, amongst others, (i) the right not to be deprived of property
without due process of law; (ii) the right to equal protection under the laws; and (iii)
the right to be protected against laws which impair the obligations of existing
contracts. The United States District Court issued a ruling August 30, 2001 in which the
Court dismissed the SPVs substantive due process claim but, as requested by the SPV,
ruled that the remainder of the SPVs claims could be pursued at such time as the State
lawsuit was concluded. The Montana State District Court issued a ruling November 1, 2001
in response to a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion For Summary Judgment by the State of
Montana. In this ruling, the Court dismissed four of the SPVs fourteen counts, including
its substantive due process and equal protection challenges to I-137s validity. The
decision maintained for adjudication the contract impairment validity challenge, contract
damage claims, and all of the takings claims. Following the November 2001 ruling by the
State District Court, the State filed a new Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims.
In an Order dated December 9, 2002, the Court granted the State Summary Judgment on all
of the remaining legal claims of the Companys lawsuit. On January 14, 2003, the Company
filed an appeal with the Montana State Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard by the
Montana Supreme Court on October 28, 2003. The Company expects a ruling during 2005.On March 2, 2004, a local citizens group (Miners, Merchants and Montanans for Jobs and
Economic Opportunity FOR I-147), filed the language of a new initiative, I-147, to be
placed before the voters of Montana at the November 2, 2004 ballot which, if enacted,
would have allowed the use of cyanide leaching in open-pit gold mines with specific,
rigorous engineering practices and environmental safeguards. On July 14, 2004, the
official certification for the ballot was announced by the Secretary of State. On
November 2, 2004, I-147, the ballot initiative that would have allowed the use of cyanide
in processing gold and silver ores from new open-pit mines, was defeated by Montana
voters by a 58% to 42% vote. The defeat of I-147 does not result in an impairment to be
taken against the $12,691,500 undeveloped mineral claims and leases as their carrying
value is considered recoverable through development of the property or settlement with
the state. As a result of this vote, the Seven-Up Pete Venture plans to re-investigate
alternate technologies of gold mining and recovery of its gold deposits near Lincoln,
Montana. In addition, the Company will continue to pursue its lawsuits against the State
of Montana regarding the enactment of I-137 in state court and, if necessary, the federal
court system.Should an alternate technology be available to treat any of the gold deposits of the
Seven-Up Pete Venture, significant capital will be required to resume permitting and
ultimately develop them. No assurances can be made regarding the Companys ability to
find an economically viable alternative technology, and if found, to 12




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  10.
    Commitments and Contingencies, continued:  be able to obtain additional financing through capital markets, joint ventures, or other
arrangements in the future and that the state leases will be favorably resolved as
discussed below.(e)
    McDonald Gold Project  State LeasesOn September 24, 1998, the Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC), the entity
that administers state mineral leases, cancelled the permitting extension of the 10-year
lease term of the state leases that pertain to the McDonald Gold Project which would
require the Company, after a period of approximately seventeen months, to commence paying
a delay rental of $150,000 per month in order to maintain the leases. The carrying value
of the McDonald Gold Project as of March 31, 2005 was $12,691,500.In February 2000, pursuant to its September 1998 decision, the DNRC determined that the
primary terms of the mineral leases had expired. The Company believes it held valid
mineral leases and appealed the action of the DNRC in an administrative hearing process.
Although a DNRC Hearing Examiner affirmed the DNRC action, it is the Companys position
that the permitting process has been interrupted by the threat and passage of I-137 and,
thus, the permit extension is continued until the governmental impediment is resolved. As
part of the I-137 lawsuit filed in April 2000 against the State of Montana, the Company
asked the court to review and invalidate the DNRCs action. The court, however, in its
December 9, 2002 order as described in the preceding section, denied the Companys
petition for judicial review. On January 14, 2003, the Company filed an appeal with the
Montana State Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard by the Montana State Supreme Court
on October 28, 2003. The Company expects a ruling during 2005.The Company believes the state leases are still in effect. However, the Company does not
have the legal right to use cyanide extraction technology for an open pit mine.(f)
    Kendall Mine LawsuitsIn October 2001, a Plaintiff group filed suit in Montana District Court against the
Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CR Kendall Corporation, alleging violation of
water rights and other torts in connection with the operation of the Kendall Mine. The
Complaint seeks unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company has vigorously
defended this lawsuit and intends to continue to do so. In view of the inherent
uncertainties of lawsuits of this nature, we are unable to make a judgment concerning our
likelihood of success in, or the outcome of, this matter.In August 2002, a Preliminary Injunction was issued in Montana District Court on behalf
of the Plaintiff group in connection with the Companys auction of certain mineral rights
and fee lands in western Montana. In October 2002, the Court issued a Supplemental Order
which will sequester up to $528,000 of any proceeds realized from the auction until such
time as the lawsuit is concluded. As of March 31, 2005, $267,800 had been remitted to the
Court as required by the Order. Including interest earned on the funds remitted, the
Court held $274,800 as of March 31, 2005. 13




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  10.
    Commitments and Contingencies, continued:  In May 2004, the Company became aware of a suit filed in March 2004 in Montana District
Court against the Company, CR Kendall Corporation, and the Kendall Mine alleging
violations of the Federal Pollution Control Act. The Complaint was filed by the Montana
Environmental Information Center, Inc. and Earthworks/Mineral Policy Center, Inc. and
seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, remediation and the imposition of civil
penalties for violations dating back to September 1988. A court date has not yet been
scheduled for trial of this case. The Company will vigorously defend this action. In view
of the inherent uncertainties of lawsuits of this nature, we are unable to make a
judgment concerning our likelihood of success in, or the outcome of, this matter.(g)
    Hycroft MineIn January 2005, the Company entered into an option to purchase agreement of the Hycroft
Mine in Nevada with Vista Gold Corporation. The agreement provides for Canyon to expend
$500,000 in development and exploration drilling and mine engineering over a six-month
option period. At any time during the six-month period, Canyon could exercise the option
to purchase the Hycroft Mine for $4 million in cash plus units. The units would consist
of one share of common stock and a warrant to purchase one half share of common stock of
Canyon. The number of units would be calculated by dividing $6 million by the average
closing price of Canyon common stock for the 20 trading days prior to the exercise of the
Option. The exercise price of each warrant would be equal to 130% of the average share
price upon exercise of the Option, and the warrants would have a term of three years.  11.
    Derivative Instruments and Price Protection Arrangements: The Company did not have any forward contracts or similar derivative instruments during the
first quarter of 2005. All gold sales were on a spot basis. During the first three months of 2004,
the Company delivered gold against a forward contract that existed at December 31, 2003 (3,820
ounces at an average price of approximately $377 per ounce) which resulted in a gain of $147,200.
This gain is shown as a separate line item in the other income (expense) section in the Statement
of Operations.  12.
    Income Taxes: The Company has not recorded a tax benefit for the current period as the realization is not
expected to be likely during the year. The benefit is also not expected to be realizable as a
deferred tax asset at year end as the Company anticipates recording a full valuation allowance for
all deferred tax assets, except to the extent of offsetting reversals of expected deferred tax
liabilities. 14




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  13.
    Asset Retirement Obligations: The Companys estimated asset retirement obligations include site specific costs for
earthwork, revegetation, water treatment and dismantlement of facilities for its current or
recently producing mineral properties. The following provides a reconciliation of the Companys beginning and ending carrying values
for its asset retirement obligations in the current year: Balance, December 31, 2004
    
    $
    6,238,900Settlement of liabilities
    
    
    (381,200
    )Accretion expense
    
    
    33,500Balance, March 31, 2005
    
    
    5,891,200Current portion
    
    
    2,007,700Non current portion
    
    $
    3,883,500
  14.
    Recently Issued Financial Accounting Standards: In March 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Interpretation
No. 47 Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations  an interpretation of FASB
Statement No. 143(FIN 47). FIN 47 clarifies the term conditional asset retirement obligation as
used in SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,and requires an entity to
recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair
value can be reasonably estimated. Any uncertainty about the amount and/or timing of future
settlement of a conditional asset retirement obligation should be factored into the measurement of
the liability when sufficient information exists. FIN 47 also clarifies when an entity would have
sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN
47 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2005. The Company is currently
determining the impact of FIN 47 on its financial reporting and disclosures. At the March 2005 meeting, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of FASB discussed EITF Issue
No. 04-6, Accounting for Stripping Costs Incurred during Production in the Mining Industry,and
reached a consensus that stripping costs incurred during the production phase of a mine are
variable production costs that should be included in the cost of inventory produced during the
period. At its March 30, 2005 meeting, the FASB ratified this consensus. The consensus on this
Issue is effective for the first reporting period in fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2005. The Company is currently determining the impact of EITF Issue No. 04-6 on its financial
reporting and disclosures. In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets an amendment
of APB No. 29". This Statement amends APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Non-monetary
Transactionsto eliminate the exception for non-monetary exchanges of similar productive assets
and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges of non-monetary assets that do not have
commercial substance. That exception required that some non-monetary exchanges be recorded on a
carryover basis versus this Statement, which requires that an entity record a non-monetary exchange
at fair value and recognize any gain or loss if the transaction has commercial substance. This
Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. Adoption of SFAS No. 153 had
no material impact on our financial position, net earnings or cash flows. In
December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R) revised 2004, Share-Based Payment". This
Statement is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation", and supersedes
APB No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. The Statement requires companies to
recognize in the income statement the grant-date fair value of stock options and other equity based
compensation issued to employees. This Statement is effective as of the
beginning of the first interim or annual period that commences after December 15, 2005. The Company
cannot yet determine the impact that the adoption of SFAS
No. 123(R) revised 2004 will have on our
financial position, net earnings or cash flows. 15




---



##### Table of Contents



CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATION
NOTES TO INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)  14.
    Recently Issued Financial Accounting Standards, continued: In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs  An Amendment of ARB
No. 43, Chapter 4(SFAS 151). SFAS 151 amends the guidance in ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, Inventory
Pricing, to clarify the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight,
handling costs, and wasted material (spoilage). Among other provisions, the new rule requires that
items such as idle facility expense, excessive spoilage, double freight, and rehandling costs be
recognized as current-period charges regardless of whether they meet the criterion of so abnormal
as stated in ARB No. 43. Additionally, SFAS 151 requires that the allocation of fixed production
overhead to the costs of conversion be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities.
SFAS 151 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. We are currently evaluating
the effect that the adoption of SFAS 151 will have on our results of operations or financial
position, but do not expect SFAS 151 to have a material effect. In September 2004, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 03-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments(EITF No. 03-1). The guidance in EITF No.
03-1 was effective for other-than-temporary impairment evaluations made in reporting periods
beginning after June 15, 2004. However, certain provisions regarding the assessment of whether an
impairment is other than temporary have been delayed. Although the disclosure requirements continue
to be effective in annual financial statements for fiscal years ending after December 15,
2003, for investments accounted for under SFAS No. 115 and 124. For all other investments
addressed by EITF No. 03-1, the disclosures continue to be effective in annual financial statements
for fiscal years ending after June 15, 2004. We do not believe that the adoption of EITF No. 03-1
will have a material impact on our financial position, net earnings or cash flows. 16




---



##### Table of Contents



Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Cautionary Statement for Purposes of the Safe Harbor Provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The matters discussed in this report on Form 10-Q, when not historical matters, are
forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual
results to differ materially from projected results. Such factors include, among others, the
speculative nature of mineral exploration, commodity prices, production and reserve estimates,
environmental and government regulations, availability of financing, judicial proceedings, force
majeure events, and other risk factors as described from time to time in the Companys filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of these factors are beyond the Companys ability to
control or predict. The Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update its forward-looking
statements, whether as a result of receiving new information, the occurrence of future events, or
otherwise. Overview The Companys financial condition and liquidity improved from December 31, 2004 to March 31,
2005, primarily due to an equity financing which resulted in proceeds of $3.1 million. This inflow
allowed the Company to absorb negative operating cash flow of $0.6 million and repay debt
obligations of $0.9 million. The Company ended the quarter with $6.2 million of cash and cash
equivalents. Revenues declined 42% from the prior year three month period, due to declining production
levels as a result of no new ore added to the leach pad. Improving spot gold prices resulted in
price realizations of $424 per ounce during the first three months of 2005, as compared to $383 per
ounce in the first three months of 2004. Overall, the Companys results of operations reflect a
lower net loss in 2005 as the Briggs Mine has gone from a production phase in the first three
months of 2004 to a reclamation phase in the first three months of 2005. Therefore, costs such as
salaries, benefits and cyanide consumption have been reduced in 2005 resulting in a lower unit
cost. In addition, the prior period included $1.3 million of compensation expense related to
variable plan accounting for the Companys stock option plans. Effective July 1, 2004, the Company
changed from variable plan accounting to fixed plan accounting for stock options. On November 2, 2004, I-147, the ballot initiative that would have allowed the use of cyanide
in processing gold and silver ores from new open-pit mines, was defeated by Montana voters. As a
result of this vote, the Seven-Up Pete Venture plans to re-investigate alternate technologies of
gold mining and recovery of its gold deposits near Lincoln, Montana. In addition, the Company will
continue to pursue its lawsuits against the State of Montana regarding the enactment of I-137 in
state court and, if necessary, the federal court system. (See Other Matters  McDonald Gold
Project  Anti-Mining Initiative). During the first quarter of 2005, the Company commenced its due diligence efforts in
connection with an option to purchase the Hycroft Mine in Nevada, spending $77,000 of an aggregate
commitment of $500,000. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates The ensuing discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations are based
on the Companys consolidated financial statements, prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Certain amounts included in or
affecting the Companys financial statements and related disclosures must be estimated, requiring
that certain assumptions be made with respect to values or conditions which cannot be made with
certainty at the time the financial statements are prepared. Therefore, the reported amounts of the
Companys assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses, and associated disclosures with respect to
contingent assets and obligations are necessarily affected by these estimates. The more significant
areas requiring the use of management estimates and assumptions relate to mineral reserves that are
the basis for future cash flow estimates and units-of-production amortization determination;
recoverability and timing of gold production 17




---



##### Table of Contents



from the heap leaching process; environmental, reclamation and closure obligations; asset
impairments (including estimates of future cash flows); useful lives and residual values of
intangible assets; fair value of financial instruments; valuation allowances for deferred tax
assets; valuation of equity instruments; and contingencies and litigation. The Company bases its
estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be
reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different
assumptions or conditions. Users of financial information produced for interim periods are
encouraged to refer to the Companys accounting policies, footnotes to the financial statements,
and detailed discussion of critical accounting policies and estimates set forth in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K. Results of Operations The Company recorded a net loss of $2.3 million, or $0.08 per share, on revenues of $1.0
million for the three months ended March 31, 2005. For the comparable period of 2004, the Company
recorded a net loss of $3.9 million, or $0.15 per share, on revenues of $1.7 million. For the three months ended March 31, 2005, the Company sold 2,365 ounces of gold and at an
average price of $424 per equivalent gold ounce. For the comparable period of 2004, the Company
sold 4,540 ounces of gold at an average realized price of $383 per equivalent gold ounce. The New
York Commodity Exchange (COMEX) gold price averaged $428 and $409 per ounce for the three months
ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The following table summaries the Companys gold deliveries and revenues for the three months
ended March 31, 2005 and comparable period for 2004: Three Months Ended
    
    
    Three Months EndedMarch 31, 2005
    
    
    March 31, 2004Average
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    AverageGold
    
    
    Price Per
    
    
    Revenue
    
    
    Gold
    
    
    Price Per
    
    
    RevenueOunces
    
    
    Ounce
    
    
    $000s
    
    
    Ounces
    
    
    Ounce
    
    
    $000sDeliveriesForwards
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    3,820
    
    
    $
    377
    
    
    $
    1,442Spot sales
    
    
    2,365
    
    
    $
    424
    
    
    
    1,002
    
    
    
    720
    
    
    $
    410
    
    
    
    2952,365
    
    
    $
    424
    
    
    $
    1,002
    
    
    
    4,540
    
    
    $
    383
    
    
    $
    1,737
 Cost of sales was $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, as compared to
$2.4 million in the prior period. These amounts include write downs of inventory at the Briggs Mine
to net realizable value of $128,200 and $552,300 for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and
March 31, 2004, respectively. At March 31, 2005, the Company has estimated approximately 4,834
ounces of gold will be recovered from the leach pad. Depreciation, depletion and amortization was lower in the current period due to lower
production at the Briggs Mine as it moved from a production phase to a reclamation phase. Selling, general and administrative costs were lower for the period ending March 31, 2005 than
the comparable period in 2004 due to no compensation expense recorded under the Company stock
option plans. Debenture conversion expense in the period ending March 31, 2005 was due to $675,000 of
debentures that converted to stock and warrants at an induced conversion price that was lower than
the stated price. Liquidity & Capital Resources For
the three months ended March 31, 2005, operating activities used
approximately $0.6 million of cash and
financing activities provided $2.2 million of cash from the March 15, 2005 financing of $3.1
million and repayment of debentures of $0.9 million, resulting in a net increase in cash of $1.6
million. Cash and cash equivalents at March 31, 2005 was $6.2 million. 18




---



##### Table of Contents



During the first three months of 2005, the Company (i) raised $3.1 million through the sale of
units consisting of 4,366,734 shares of common stock and 2,183,367 warrants at a price of $0.721
per unit and paid matured debentures in the amount of $924,000. Outlook Summary The Company believes that its cash requirements over the next 12 months can be funded through
a combination of existing cash and cash flow from operations and cash raised from financing
activities, even though there has been negative cash flow from operations for the three months
ended March 31, 2005. However, should the Company exercise its option on the Hycroft Mine, additional funding will
be required for i) the $4 million cash portion of the acquisition cost, and ii) estimated
additional $25 million for restarting the mine including waste stripping and other development
costs. We do not have the capital resources sufficient to reopen and operate the Hycroft Mine. In
order to do so we will need to seek funding from outside sources including equity, debt, or both. The Companys long-term liquidity may be impacted by the scheduled wind down of operations at
the Briggs Mine during 2005, which is currently the only internal source of cash flow. The Company
is continually evaluating business opportunities such as joint ventures and mergers and
acquisitions with the objective of creating additional cash flow to sustain the corporation,
provide a future source of funds for growth, as well as to continue its litigation efforts with
respect to the McDonald Gold Project. Moreover, should an alternate technology be developed to
treat the McDonald or Seven-Up Pete deposits, significant capital would be necessary to resume
permitting and ultimately develop the McDonald Gold Project. While the Company believes it will be
able to finance its continuing activities, there are no assurances of success in this regard or in
the Companys ability to obtain additional financing through capital markets, joint ventures, or
other arrangements in the future. If managements plans are not successful, operations and
liquidity may be adversely impacted. Operations Active mining at the Briggs Mine was concluded in April 2004. Ore on the heap leach pad will
be actively leached through April 2005 and rinsed through March 2006. Reclamation of the waste
dumps commenced in the second quarter of 2004 and will continue through 2005, at a cost of
approximately $1.7 million. The Briggs Mine is expected to produce approximately 7,500 ounces of
gold in 2005. The Company expects to spend approximately $0.3 million on closure activities on the Kendall
Mine reclamation during 2005. Expenditures at the McDonald Gold Project for legal and land holding costs are expected to be
approximately $0.5 million in 2005. Financing On March 15, 2005, the Company completed a financing which raised $3,101,000 through the sale
of 4,366,734 units. Each unit consisted of one share of common stock and 0.5 warrant. The warrant
has a three year term which cannot be exercised before September 22, 2005 and expires March 14,
2008 with an exercise price of $1.03 per share. The shares were registered through a shelf
registration statement. The warrants and the shares obtained through the exercise of the warrants
have not been registered. Aggregate proceeds of approximately $2.7 million would be realized and
unregistered shares would be delivered on exercise of these warrants. The relative fair value of
the new warrants issued was $480,000 and this amount is included in Capital in Excess of Par Value
in the Statement of Changes in Stockholders Equity. 19




---



##### Table of Contents



At March 31, 2005, the Company had outstanding warrants issued in connection with previous
transactions as follows: i) warrants to purchase 2,199,600 shares of common stock at a price of
$2.16 per share through December 1, 2005 and ii) warrants to purchase 2,651,500 shares of common
stock at a price of $1.03 per share through March 14, 2008. Aggregate proceeds of approximately
$7.5 million would be realized on exercise of these warrants. In March 2005, $924,000 of the Companys 6% convertible debentures was repaid, $675,000 was
converted into stock, and $825,000 of the remaining debentures were extended to March 2011. The
remaining principal is convertible by the holders to common stock of the Company at any time at a
conversion rate of $1.38 per share of common stock. The Companys stock price at the end of March
2005 was $0.72 per share. Contractual Obligations The Companys contractual obligations are as follows: Payments due by PeriodLess than
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    More thanTotal
    
    
    
    1 year
    
    
    
    1 - 3 years
    
    

    
    3 - 5 years
    
    
    
    5 yearsLong-term debt obligations
    
    
    $
    825,000
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    $
    825,000Capital lease obligations
    
    
    
    28,900
    
    
    
    
    28,900
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Operating lease obligations
    
    
    
    189,900
    
    
    
    
    80,000
    
    
    
    
    109,900
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Asset retirement obligations
    
    
    
    5,891,200
    
    
    
    
    2,007,700
    
    
    
    
    3,883,500
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    
    $
    6,935,000
    
    
    
    $
    2,116,600
    
    
    
    $
    3,993,400
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    
    $
    825,000
 Other Matters McDonald Gold Project  Anti-Mining Initiative In November 1998, the Montana electorate passed an anti-mining initiative (I-137) by a vote of
52% to 48%. I-137, as modified by the State Legislature in April 1999, bans development of new
gold and silver mines, which use open-pit mining methods and cyanide in the treatment and recovery
process. In April 2000, the SPV filed lawsuits in Montana State District Court and in the United
States District Court, seeking to have I-137 declared unconstitutional, or, alternatively, to
obtain a takings or damage award for the lost value of the McDonald, Seven-Up Pete and Keep Cool
mineral properties. These lawsuits are based on, amongst others, (i) the right not to be deprived
of property without due process of law; (ii) the right to equal protection under the laws; and
(iii) the right to be protected against laws which impair the obligations of existing contracts.
The United States District Court issued a ruling August 30, 2001 in which the Court dismissed the
SPVs substantive due process claim but, as requested by the SPV, ruled that the remainder of the
SPVs claims could be pursued at such time as the State lawsuit was concluded. The Montana State
District Court issued a ruling November 1, 2001 in response to a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion For
Summary Judgment by the State of Montana. In this ruling, the Court dismissed four of the SPVs
fourteen counts, including its substantive due process and equal protection challenges to I-137s
validity. The decision maintained for adjudication the contract impairment validity challenge,
contract damage claims, and all of the takings claims. Following the November 2001 ruling by the
State District Court, the State filed a new Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims. In an
Order dated December 9, 2002, the Court granted the State Summary Judgment on all of the remaining
legal claims of the Companys lawsuit. On January 14, 2003, the Company filed an appeal with the
Montana State Supreme Court of the State District Court Order. Oral arguments were heard by the
Montana State Supreme Court on October 28, 2003. The Company expects a ruling during 2005. On March 2, 2004, a local citizens group (Miners, Merchants and Montanans for Jobs and
Economic Opportunity, FOR I-147), filed the language of a new initiative, I-147, to be placed
before the voters of Montana at the November 2, 2004 ballot which, if enacted, would have allowed
use of cyanide leaching in open-pit gold mines 20




---



##### Table of Contents



with specific, rigorous engineering practices and environmental safeguards. On July 14, 2004, the
official certification for the ballot was announced by the Secretary of State. On November 2, 2004,
I-147, the ballot initiative that would have allowed the use of cyanide in processing gold and
silver ores from new open-pit mines, was defeated by Montana voters by a 58% to 42% vote. The
defeat of I-147 does not result in an impairment to be taken against the $12.7 million undeveloped
mineral claims and leases assets as their carrying value is considered recoverable through
development of the property or settlement with the state. As a result of this vote, the Seven-Up
Pete Venture plans to re-investigate alternate technologies of gold mining and recovery of its gold
deposits near Lincoln, Montana. In addition, the Company will continue to pursue its lawsuits
against the State of Montana regarding the enactment of I-137 in state court and, if necessary, the
federal court system. Should an alternate technology be available to treat any of the gold deposits of the Seven-Up
Pete Venture, significant capital will be required to resume permitting and ultimately develop
those deposits. No assurances can be made regarding the Companys ability to find an economically
viable alternative technology, and if found, to be able to obtain additional financing through
capital markets, joint ventures, or other arrangements in the future. McDonald Gold Project  State Leases On September 24, 1998, the Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC), the entity that
administers state mineral leases, cancelled the permitting extension of the
10-year lease term of the state leases that pertain to the McDonald Gold Project which would
require the Company, after a period of approximately seventeen months, to commence paying a delay
rental of $150,000 per month in order to maintain the leases. In February 2000, pursuant to its
September 1998 decision, the DNRC determined that the primary terms of the mineral leases had
expired. The Company appealed the action of the DNRC in an administrative hearing process and the
DNRC Hearing Examiner affirmed the DNRC action. It is the Companys position that the permitting
process has been interrupted by the threat and passage of I-137 and, thus, the permit extension is
continued until the governmental impediment is resolved. As part of the I-137 lawsuit filed in
April 2000 against the State of Montana, the Company asked the court to review and invalidate the
DNRCs action, however, the court, in its December 9, 2002 order as described in the preceding
paragraph, denied the Companys petition for judicial review. On January 14, 2003, the Company
filed an appeal with the Montana State Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard by the Montana
State Supreme Court on October 28, 2003. The Company expects a ruling during 2005. The Company believes the state leases are still in effect. However the Company does not have the legal right to use cyanide extraction technology for an open pit mine. Kendall Mine Lawsuit and Preliminary Injunction In October 2001, a Plaintiff group filed suit in Montana District Court against the Company
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CR Kendall Corporation, alleging violation of water rights and
other torts in connection with the operation of the Kendall Mine. The Complaint seeks unspecified
damages and punitive damages. The Company will vigorously defend this action. In view of the
inherent uncertainties of lawsuits of this nature, we are unable to make a judgment concerning our
likelihood of success in, or the outcome of, this matter. In August 2002, a Preliminary Injunction was issued in Montana District Court on behalf of the
Plaintiff group in connection with the Companys auction of certain mineral rights and fee lands in
western Montana. In October 2002, the Court issued a Supplemental Order which will sequester up
to $528,000 of any proceeds realized from the auction until such time as the lawsuit is
concluded. As of March 31, 2005, $267,800 had been 21




---



##### Table of Contents



remitted to the Court as required by the Order. Including interest earned on the funds remitted,
the Court held $274,800 as of March 31, 2005. Lawsuit Alleging Violations of the Federal Pollution Control Act In May 2004, the Company became aware of a suit filed in March 2004 in Montana District Court
against the Company, CR Kendall Corporation, and the Kendall Mine alleging violations of the
Federal Pollution Control Act. The Complaint was filed by the Montana Environmental Information
Center, Inc. and Earthworks/Mineral Policy Center, Inc. and seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief, remediation and the imposition of civil penalties. A court date has not been scheduled for
trial of this case. The Company will vigorously defend this action. In view of the inherent
uncertainties of lawsuits of this nature, we are unable to make a judgment concerning our
likelihood of success in, or the outcome of, this matter. Environmental Regulation In 1995, the Montana State Legislature passed legislation which streamlined the permitting
process of new industrial projects by reorganizing the several state agencies that had jurisdiction
over environmental permitting into one new central agency, the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). This agency is responsible for acting on an application for a Hard Rock Mining Operating
Permit in connection with a Plan of Operations filed by the Seven-Up Pete Joint Venture for the
McDonald Gold Project. This permit, as well as several other local, state and federal permits,
including a joint state and federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), will be required before
permits can be issued. There are no assurances that all permits will be issued nor that, in the
event they are issued, such issuances will be timely, nor that conditions contained in the permits
will not be so onerous as to preclude construction and operation of the project. Moreover, with the
passage of I-137 in November 1998, the Company cannot presently proceed with permitting and
development of the McDonald Gold Project using open pit mining in combination with cyanide
recovery. The Kendall Mine operates under permits granted by the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). As of March 31, 2005, the Company has $1,954,400 on deposit in an interest bearing
account with the DEQ for reclamation at the Kendall Mine. In February 2002, the DEQ issued a
decision that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for completion of
reclamation at Kendall. The Companys estimate to achieve mine closure could be impacted by the
outcome of an agency decision following an EIS. The Briggs Mine operates under permits granted by various agencies including the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), Inyo County, the California Department of Conservation, and the Lahontan
Regional Water equality Control Board (Lahontan). These agencies have jointly required the Company
to post a reclamation bond in the amount of $3,030,000 to ensure appropriate reclamation.
Additionally, the Company was required by Lahontan to post a $1,010,000 bond to ensure adequate
funds to mitigate any foreseeable release of pollutants to state waters. Both bonds are subject
to annual review and adjustment. In 2000, in response to a demand for an increase in collateral by the Surety who issued the
above described bonds, the Company granted a security interest in 28,000 acres of mineral interests
in Montana. In addition, the Company agreed to make cash deposits with the Surety totaling $1.5
million over a three year period at the rate of $0.5 million per year, commencing June 30, 2001.
The Company has not made any deposits to date, and is in discussions with the Surety to reschedule
the deposit requirements. If an acceptable rescheduling of the deposit requirements cannot be
agreed to, the Surety could seek to terminate the bonds which could result in the Company becoming
liable for the principal amounts under its collateral agreement with the Surety. In April 2004, the
Company ceased active mining at Briggs and has commenced reclamation activities. In April 2003, the California Legislature passed a bill which stipulates that, if a project is
located within one mile of a Native American sacred site and on limited use lands within the
California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), new open-pit metal mine projects must be backfilled
during reclamation and any disturbances to sacred 22




---



##### Table of Contents



sites must be mitigated to the sole satisfaction of the Native American tribe. The Companys Briggs
project is located in the Panamint Range within the designated limited use land of the CDCA and the
nearby Timbisha Shoshone Native American tribe has stated that they consider the entire project
area to be sacred. The Company could be prohibited from developing any additional gold deposits in
the Panamint Range due to passage of this law. On December 12, 2002, the California State Mining and Geology Board (CSMGB) enacted
an Emergency Backfill Regulation, for 120 days, that essentially requires that all future metal
mines be backfilled to the original contour of the landscape. On April 10, 2003, the CSMGB made
this Backfill Regulation permanent. Because of the high cost of backfilling, this regulation
essentially eliminates any potential new mines on the Companys properties in the Panamint Range. Based upon current knowledge, the Company believes that it is in material compliance with all
applicable environmental laws and regulations as currently promulgated. However, the exact nature
of environmental control problems, if any, which the Company may encounter in the future cannot be
predicted primarily because of the increasing number, complexity and changing character of
environmental requirements that may be enacted or of the standards being promulgated by federal and
state authorities. Federal Legislation Legislation has been introduced in prior sessions of the United States Congress to modify the
requirements applicable to mining claims on federal lands under the Mining Law of 1872. To date, no
such legislation has been enacted. The timing and exact nature of any mining law changes cannot
presently be predicted, however, the Company will continue its active role in industry efforts to
work with Congress to achieve responsible changes to mining law. Gold Prices, Price Protection Arrangements, and Associated Risks The Companys revenues, earnings and cash flow are strongly influenced by world gold prices,
which fluctuate widely and over which the Company has no control. The Companys price protection
strategy is to provide an acceptable floor price for a portion of its production in order to meet
minimum coverage ratios as required by loan facilities while providing participation in potentially
higher prices. Production not subject to loan covenants has historically been sold at spot prices.
The risks associated with price protection arrangements include opportunity risk by limiting
unilateral participation in upward prices; production risk associated with the requirement to
deliver physical ounces against a forward commitment; and credit risk associated with
counterparties to the hedged transaction. The Company believes its production risk is minimal, and
furthermore, has the flexibility to selectively extend maturity dates on its forward commitments.
With regard to credit risk, the Company uses only creditworthy counterparties and does not
anticipate any non-performance by such counterparties. The Company, however, could be subject to
cash margin calls by its counterparties if the market price of gold significantly exceeds the
forward contract price which would create additional financial obligations. As of March 31, 2005,
the Company has no outstanding loan facilities and all sales are done on a spot price basis. Recently Issued Accounting Standards In March 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued FASB Interpretation No.
47 Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations  an interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 143(FIN 47). FIN 47 clarifies the term conditional asset retirement obligation as used in
SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,and requires an entity to recognize a
liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value can be
reasonably estimated. Any uncertainty about the amount and/or timing of future settlement of a
conditional asset retirement obligation should be factored into the measurement of the liability
where sufficient information exists. FIN 47 also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient
information to reasonably estimate the fair value of an asset retirement obligation. FIN 47 is
effective for fiscal years ending after 23




---



##### Table of Contents



December 15, 2005. The Company is currently determining the impact of FIN 47 on its financial
reporting and disclosures. At the March 2005 meeting, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) of FASB discussed EITF Issue
No. 04-6, Accounting for Stripping Costs Incurred during Production in the Mining Industry,and
reached a consensus that stripping costs incurred during the production phase of a mine are variable
production costs that should be included in the cost of inventory produced during the period. At
its March 30, 2005 meeting, the FASB ratified this consensus. The consensus on this Issue is
effective for the first reporting period in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. The
Company is currently determining the impact of EITF Issue No. 04-6 on its financial reporting and
disclosures. In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153, Exchanges of Non-monetary Assets an amendment
of APB No. 29. This Statement amends APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Non-monetary
Transactionsto eliminate the exception for non-monetary exchanges of similar productive assets
and replaces it with a general exception for exchanges of non-monetary assets that do not have
commercial substance. That exception required that some non-monetary exchanges be recorded on a
carryover basis versus this Statement, which requires that an entity record a non-monetary exchange
at fair value and recognize any gain or loss if the transaction has commercial substance. This
Statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. We do not believe that the
adoption of SFAS No. 153 will have a material impact on our financial position, net earnings or
cash flows. In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R) revised 2004, Share-Based Payment". This
Statement is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for
Stock-Based Compensation, and supercedes
APB No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to
Employees. The Statement requires companies to
recognize in the income statement the grant-date fair value of stock options and other equity based
compensation issued to employees. This Statement is effective as of the beginning of the first
interim or annual period that commences after December 15, 2005. The Company has not yet determined
whether the effects of the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) revised 2004 will have a material impact on our
financial position, net earnings or cash flows. In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151, Inventory Costs  An Amendment of ARB No. 43,
Chapter 4(SFAS 151). SFAS 151 amends the guidance in ARB No. 43, Chapter 4, Inventory
Pricing, to clarify the accounting for abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight,
handling costs, and wasted material (spoilage). Among other provisions, the new rule requires that
items such as idle facility expense, excessive spoilage, double freight, and rehandling costs be
recognized as current-period charges regardless of whether they meet the criterion of so abnormal
as stated in ARB No. 43. Additionally, SFAS 151 requires that the allocation of fixed production
overhead to the costs of conversion be based on the normal capacity of the production facilities.
SFAS 151 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. We are currently evaluating
the effect that the adoption of SFAS 151 will have on our results of operations or financial
position, but do not expect SFAS 151 to have a material effect. In September 2004, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 03-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments(EITF No. 03-1). The guidance in EITF No.
03-1 was effective for other-than-temporary impairment evaluations made in reporting periods
beginning after June 15, 2004. However, certain provisions regarding the assessment of whether an
impairment is other than temporary have been delayed. Although the disclosure requirements continue
to be effective in annual financial statements for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2003, for
investments accounted for under SFAS No. 115 and 124. For all other investments addressed by EITF
No. 03-1, the disclosures continue to be effective in annual financial statements for fiscal years
ending after June 15, 2004. We do not believe that the adoption of EITF No. 03-1 will have a
material impact on our financial position, net earnings or cash flows. 24




---



##### Table of Contents



Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Commodity Prices The Companys earnings and cash flow are significantly impacted by changes in the market price
of gold. Gold prices can fluctuate widely and are affected by numerous factors, such as demand,
production levels, economic policies of central banks, producer hedging, and the strength of the
U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. During the last five years, the average annual market
price has fluctuated between $271 per ounce and $409 per ounce. Interest Rates At March 31, 2005, the Companys debt was approximately $0.8 million which relates to its 6%
convertible debentures. Thus, the Company is not presently subject to interest rate risk. Foreign Currency The price of gold is denominated in U.S. dollars, and the Companys gold production operations
are in the United States. The Company conducts only a minor amount of exploration activity in
foreign countries and has minimal foreign currency exposure. 
 Item 4. Controls and Procedures  Disclosure Controls and Procedures The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports it files or submits under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis and
that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow for timely decisions regarding
required disclosures. In connection with previously identified internal control weaknesses more fully disclosed
below, the Company has modified its disclosure controls and procedures to confirm that the
financial information and related disclosures fairly presents its operating results and financial
condition for the periods presented. The Companys principal executive and financial officers have
concluded that its disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) as of the end of the period covered by this first
quarter report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2005, are effective based on the
evaluation of these controls and procedures.  Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting As previously disclosed in the Companys Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004, management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting
was not effective as of the end of the period covered by the report, because of the following
identified material weaknesses:  Incorrect application of generally accepted accounting principles regarding equity
compensation plans  
    During the first quarter of 2004, the Company determined that its stock option
plans should have been recorded under variable plan accounting, as the plans allowed an
option holder to pay for the exercise price using the share withholding method. This
caused the Company to restate the consolidated financial statements included in its
2003 Form 10-K. Although the Company subsequently amended its stock option plans and
modified existing option agreements to no longer allow the share withholding method 25




---



##### Table of Contents



of payment, no transactions occurred since that time to allow testing of the Companys
remediation efforts relating to this control deficiency as of March 31, 2005.  Lack of adequate policies and procedures regarding the review and approval process of
complex calculations or unusual transactions  
    During the second quarter of 2004, the Company determined that its
model used for impairment testing of the Briggs Mine was incorrect,
insofar as the revenue stream included ounces recovered from the leach
pad. The Company changed its model using only projected revenues from
in-ground reserves which resulted in earlier and more frequent
impairments than had previously been recorded. This caused the Company
to restate the consolidated financial statements included in its 2003
Form 10-K and for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004 included in
its Form 10-Q. As the Briggs Mine is the Companys only producing
asset, and no in-ground reserves existed at March 31, 2005, the
Company has been unable to test its remediation efforts relating to
this control deficiency as of March 31, 2005.
    Also during the second quarter of 2004, the Company determined that
its accounting for a 2003 private placement of convertible debentures
was incorrect.Specifically, a beneficial conversion feature and
related amortization expense should have been recognized for certain
subscribers that executed the subscription agreement on a date when
the conversion price was lower than the market price of the Companys
common stock. This caused the Company to restate the consolidated
financial statements included in its 2003 Form 10-K and for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2004 included in its Form 10-Q. As no
transactions of a similar complexity occurred subsequent to this
private placement, the Company has been unable to test its remediation
efforts relating to this control deficiency as of March 31, 2005. During the period ended March 31, 2005, the Company has undertaken the following changes in
the Companys internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting to
address the material weaknesses and strengthen its internal control over financial reporting:  
    Increased involvement in the review and analysis by senior management of the
Companys financial statements.
    Added more rigorous policies and procedures regarding the review and approval
process for complex calculations and transactions.
    Engaged outside consultants with accounting expertise regarding unusual and
complex transactions. 26




---



##### Table of Contents



PART II OTHER INFORMATION 
 Item 1.
    
    Legal ProceedingsNo material changes.
 
 Item 2.
    
    Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of ProceedsOn March 15, 2005, the Company completed a financing which raised
$3,101,000 through the sale of 4,366,734 units. Each unit consisted
of one share of common stock and 0.5 warrant. The warrant has a
three year term which cannot be exercised before September 22, 2005
and expires March 14, 2008 with an exercise price of $1.03 per
share. The shares were registered through a shelf registration
statement. The warrants and the shares obtained through the exercise
of the warrants have not been registered. Any warrants exercised
will be issued unregistered shares.
 
 Item 3.
    
    Defaults Upon Senior Securities
    
    None
 
 Item 4.
    
    Submission of Matters to Vote of Security Holders
    
    None
 
 Item 5.
    
    Other Information
    
    None
 
 Item 6.
    
    ExhibitsExhibits, as required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K, are listed on pages 28-29.
The exhibit numbers correspond to the numbers assigned in Item 601 of Regulation S-K.
 27




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBITNUMBER
    
    DESCRIPTION3.1
    
    Articles of Incorporation of the Company, as amended (1)3.1.1
    
    Executed Certificate of Designations, dated December 26, 1990, as filed with the
Delaware Secretary of State on December 26, 1990 (2)3.2
    
    Bylaws of the Company, as amended (3)4.1
    
    Specimen Common Stock Certificate (4)4.2
    
    Specimen Warrant Certificate (5)4.4
    
    Rights Agreement dated March 20, 1997, between Canyon Resources Corporation and
American Securities Transfer & Trust, Inc. (6)4.5
    
    Specimen Debenture (7)10.1
    
    Change of Control Agreements, dated December 6, 1991, between the Company and Richard H.
De Voto and Gary C. Huber (8)10.1.2
    
    Change of Control Agreement executed May 3, 2005, between the Company and James K. B.
Hesketh (9)10.2
    
    Loan Agreement dated December 6, 1995, among CR Briggs Corporation as Borrower and Banque
Paribas as Agent (10)10.2.1
    
    Amendment No. 1 to Loan and Guarantee Agreements dated April 8, 1998, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas as Agent (11)10.2.2
    
    Amendment No. 2 to Loan and Guarantee Agreements dated August 19, 1998, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas as Agent (11)10.2.3
    
    Amendment No. 3 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated July 8, 1999, among CR Briggs
Corporation and Banque Paribas as Agent (12)10.2.4
    
    Amendment No. 4 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated March 26, 2001, among CR Briggs
Corporation and BNP Paribas, as successor-in-interest to Banque Paribas as Agent (13)10.2.5
    
    Amendment No. 5 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated March 25, 2002, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas, as Agent (14)10.2.6
    
    Amendment No. 6 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated June 14, 2002, among CR Briggs
Corporation and BNP Paribas, as successor-in-interest to Banque Paribas as Agent (15)10.3
    
    Master Tax Lease dated December 27, 1995, between CR Briggs Corporation and Caterpillar
Financial Services Corporation (10)10.4
    
    Purchase Agreement dated September 25, 1997, between Phelps Dodge Corporation, acting
through its division, Phelps Dodge Mining Company, and CR Montana Corporation and Canyon
Resources Corporation (16)10.4.1
    
    Second Amendment and Supplement to Purchase Agreement dated September 17, 1999, between
Phelps Dodge Corporation, acting through its division, Phelps Dodge Mining Company, CR
Montana Corporation and Canyon Resources Corporation, and Seven-Up Pete Joint Venture (12)10.5
    
    Assignment of Royalty Proceeds, effective as of April 1, 2001, between Canyon Resources
Corporation and Franco-Nevada Mining Corporation, Inc. (17)14.1
    
    Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (18)16.1
    
    Letter regarding Changes in Registrants Certifying Accountants (19)31.1*
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200231.2*
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200232.1*
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200232.2*
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   *
    
    Filed herewith 28




---



##### Table of Contents



(1)
    
    Exhibit 3.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.1(a) to the Companys Amended
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000.(2)
    
    Exhibit 3.1.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 26, 1990.(3)
    
    Exhibit 3.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.2 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997.(4)
    
    Exhibit 4.1 is incorporated by reference from the Companys Registration Statement on
Form 8-A as declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 1986.(5)
    
    Exhibit 4.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.2 of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2002.(6)
    
    Exhibit 4.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4 of the Companys Report on Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 1997.(7)
    
    Exhibit 4.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.5 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.(8)
    
    Exhibit 10.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.20 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992.(9)
    
    Exhibit 10.1.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1.2 of the Companys Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2005.(10)
    
    Exhibits 10.2 and 10.3 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 4.9, 4.10, 10.22 and
10.23 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
1995.(11)
    
    Exhibits 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 10.2.1 and 10.2.2
of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998.(12)
    
    Exhibits 10.2.3 and 10.4.1 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 10.2.3 and 10.4.1
of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.(13)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.4 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000.(14)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.5 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001.(15)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.6 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.6 of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002.(16)
    
    Exhibit 10.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 2 of the Companys Report on Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 1997.(17)
    
    Exhibit 10.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 1.1 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2001.(18)
    
    Exhibit 14.1 is incorporated by reference from Appendix B of the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2004.(19)
    
    Exhibit 16.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 16.1 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004. 29




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. CANYON RESOURCES CORPORATIONDate: May 10, 2005
    /s/ Richard H. DeVotoRichard H. DeVotoChief Executive Officer Date: May 10, 2005

/s/
Gary C. HuberGary C. HuberVice President-Finance 30




---



##### Table of Contents



Exhibit Index EXHIBITNUMBER
    
    DESCRIPTION3.1
    
    Articles of Incorporation of the Company, as amended (1)3.1.1
    
    Executed Certificate of Designations, dated December 26, 1990, as filed with the
Delaware Secretary of State on December 26, 1990 (2)3.2
    
    Bylaws of the Company, as amended (3)4.1
    
    Specimen Common Stock Certificate (4)4.2
    
    Specimen Warrant Certificate (5)4.4
    
    Rights Agreement dated March 20, 1997, between Canyon Resources Corporation and
American Securities Transfer & Trust, Inc. (6)4.5
    
    Specimen Debenture (7)10.1
    
    Change of Control Agreements, dated December 6, 1991, between the Company and Richard H.
De Voto and Gary C. Huber (8)10.1.2
    
    Change of Control Agreement executed May 3, 2005, between the Company and James K. B.
Hesketh (9)10.2
    
    Loan Agreement dated December 6, 1995, among CR Briggs Corporation as Borrower and Banque
Paribas as Agent (10)10.2.1
    
    Amendment No. 1 to Loan and Guarantee Agreements dated April 8, 1998, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas as Agent (11)10.2.2
    
    Amendment No. 2 to Loan and Guarantee Agreements dated August 19, 1998, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas as Agent (11)10.2.3
    
    Amendment No. 3 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated July 8, 1999, among CR Briggs
Corporation and Banque Paribas as Agent (12)10.2.4
    
    Amendment No. 4 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated March 26, 2001, among CR Briggs
Corporation and BNP Paribas, as successor-in-interest to Banque Paribas as Agent (13)10.2.5
    
    Amendment No. 5 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated March 25, 2002, among CR Briggs
Corporation, Canyon Resources Corporation, and Banque Paribas, as Agent (14)10.2.6
    
    Amendment No. 6 to Loan Agreement and Waiver dated June 14, 2002, among CR Briggs
Corporation and BNP Paribas, as successor-in-interest to Banque Paribas as Agent (15)10.3
    
    Master Tax Lease dated December 27, 1995, between CR Briggs Corporation and Caterpillar
Financial Services Corporation (10)10.4
    
    Purchase Agreement dated September 25, 1997, between Phelps Dodge Corporation, acting
through its division, Phelps Dodge Mining Company, and CR Montana Corporation and Canyon
Resources Corporation (16)10.4.1
    
    Second Amendment and Supplement to Purchase Agreement dated September 17, 1999, between
Phelps Dodge Corporation, acting through its division, Phelps Dodge Mining Company, CR
Montana Corporation and Canyon Resources Corporation, and Seven-Up Pete Joint Venture (12)10.5
    
    Assignment of Royalty Proceeds, effective as of April 1, 2001, between Canyon Resources
Corporation and Franco-Nevada Mining Corporation, Inc. (17)14.1
    
    Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (18)16.1
    
    Letter regarding Changes in Registrants Certifying Accountants (19)31.1*
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200231.2*
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(a)/15d-14(a), as
adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200232.1*
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200232.2*
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   *
    
    Filed herewith




---



##### Table of Contents



(1)
    
    Exhibit 3.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.1(a) to the Companys Amended
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000.(2)
    
    Exhibit 3.1.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 26, 1990.(3)
    
    Exhibit 3.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.2 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997.(4)
    
    Exhibit 4.1 is incorporated by reference from the Companys Registration Statement on
Form 8-A as declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 1986.(5)
    
    Exhibit 4.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.2 of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2002.(6)
    
    Exhibit 4.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4 of the Companys Report on Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 1997.(7)
    
    Exhibit 4.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.5 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.(8)
    
    Exhibit 10.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.20 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992.(9)
    
    Exhibit 10.1.2 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.1.2 of the Companys Report
on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2005.(10)
    
    Exhibits 10.2 and 10.3 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 4.9, 4.10, 10.22 and
10.23 of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
1995.(11)
    
    Exhibits 10.2.1 and 10.2.2 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 10.2.1 and 10.2.2
of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998.(12)
    
    Exhibits 10.2.3 and 10.4.1 are incorporated by reference from Exhibits 10.2.3 and 10.4.1
of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999.(13)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.4 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000.(14)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.5 of the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001.(15)
    
    Exhibit 10.2.6 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.2.6 of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002.(16)
    
    Exhibit 10.4 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 2 of the Companys Report on Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 1997.(17)
    
    Exhibit 10.5 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 1.1 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2001.(18)
    
    Exhibit 14.1 is incorporated by reference from Appendix B of the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2004.(19)
    
    Exhibit 16.1 is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 16.1 of the Companys Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2004.