1. Mining Done Right
John Tumazos Very Independent Research Metals & Mining
Conference
October 3, 2012
David A. Chaput
Chief Financial Officer

2. Cautionary Statements
This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended that are intended to be covered by the safe harbor created by such
sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, (i) estimates of future molybdenum prices, supply, demand and/or
production; (ii) estimates of future cash costs, direct operating costs, costs applicable to sales (CAS), or royalty payments; (iii) estimates of
future capital expenditures; (iv) estimates regarding timing of permitting, future development, construction or production activities; (v)
statements regarding cost structure, project economics, or competitive position, and (vi) statements comparing Mt. Hope to other mines,
projects, or metals. Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or
belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis However forward looking statements are subject to risks
basis. However, forward-looking risks,
uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by
such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, metals price and production volatility, global
economic conditions, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in
mining plans, exploration risks and results, political, operational and project development risks, including the Company’s ability to obtain
required permits to commence production and its ability to meet conditions precedent required to complete the Hanlong financing, adverse
g
governmental regulation and j
g judicial outcomes. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annual
p y
Report on Form 10K, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the Company’s other SEC filings. The
Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly revisions to any “forward-looking statement,” to reflect events or
circumstances after the date of this presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under
applicable securities laws.
Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Reserves and Resources
Calculations with respect to "proven reserves" and "probable reserves" referred to above have been made in accordance with, and using
the definitions of National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting
purposes, the U.S. SEC applies a different standard in order to classify mineralization as a "reserve". Under SEC standards, mineralization
may not be classified as a "reserve" unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally
extracted or produced at the time the reserve determination is made. No such determinations have been made with respect to any
mineralization at the Liberty project, and it cannot be assured that such a determination will be made. This release also uses the terms
“measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” resources We caution U.S. investors that while such terms are recognized and required by
measured indicated inferred resources. US
Canadian Securities Administrators pursuant to the National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize them. U.S. investors are
cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred
Resources”, in particular, have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal
feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under
Canadian Securities Administration rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility
studies. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally minable.
2

3. General Moly: Who We Are
Near-term producer
N t d • Mt Hope: a large and high-grade moly project
Mt.
of molybdenum with • Liberty: a follow-on moly & copper project to
two world-class grow General Moly into the largest pure-play
p j
projects primary moly producer in the world
• Up to $870 million financing arrangement with
Co pa y supported
Company suppo ed Hanlong1
g
through significant
• 20% Mt. Hope Joint Venture with POSCO
strategic partnerships
• Off-take 100% committed for first five years
• Significant State Permits already received
(Water, Air)
Significant Catal sts
Catalysts • Other State Permits to be granted H2 2012
Anticipated in 2012 (Water Pollution, Reclamation)
• Federal Permits (ROD) to be granted H2 2012
• $930 million in financing (Debt, Equity, JV) to be
closed
3
1. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring, includes $665 CDB term loan, $40mm direct equity investment, plus
up to $125 sub-debt facility per non-binding LOI.

4. Mt. Hope – A World-Class Moly Project
Winnemucca Battle Elko Wells
Mountain
Carlin
Mt.
Reno
R Hope
H
Austin Eureka Ely
• Access to infrastructure, labor
Mining-friendly
g y & support services Tonopah
location in Nevada
USA • Near many operating mines
• Annual production of 40M lbs1
Process grades of 0 1% M 1
• P d f 0.1% Mo
Large scale project
with high Mo grades • 1.3 billion pounds moly contained in Proven &
and low costs Probable Reserves
• C h costs of $ 29 per pound M 1 – well positioned
Cash f $5.29 d Mo ll ii d
on cash cost curve
• Bankable Feasibility Study completed with recently
Advanced stage of revised capital estimate of $1.284 billion
development
• Engineering more than 60% complete
• $197M spent on permitting, long-lead equipment 4
1. Average over the first five years of operations

5. Liberty - A Second World-Class Moly Project
Winnemucca Battle
Elko Wells
Mountain
Carlin
Reno
Austin Eureka Ely
Tonopah
A previous producing • Anaconda operated 1982-1985 Liberty
mine of moly and
copper • Cyprus Minerals operated 1988-1991
• Canadian Reserves containing 739M lbs Mo and
893M lbs Cu
Pre-feasibility study • Production of 20M lbs Mo and 17M lbs Cu over first
completed November 5 years at costs of $5.70/lb Mo1
2011 • 42 year mine life
• After-tax NPV 8% of $538 million2, IRR of 19.7%
5
1. Costs estimated using $2.50/lb Cu byproduct credits. See November 2011 43-101 Report on SEDAR for more information
2. NPV estimated using $15/lb Mo and $2.50/lb Cu, discounted at 8%

6. Project and Financing Timeline
Approval of baseline studies
pp September 2008
p
Approval of hydrology reports June 2010
Publish Preliminary Draft EIS August 2010
Receive first $40M equity December 2010
tranche from Hanlong
December 2011
Publish Draft EIS
March 1, 2012
Conclude Public Comment Period
NV State Air Permit Receipt May 30, 2012
NV State Court Denies Water Appeal June 14, 2012
Revised Capital estimate and August 1, 2012
1
Hanlong LOI
Completion of Preliminary FEIS September 5, 2012
Receive Final Permits (ROD) H2 2012
Receive ~$100M from POSCO
Access $665M Chinese Bank Loan ROD + 3 months target
Receive final $40M equity tranche from Hanlong
Initiate Construction
6
Commence Production 20-24 months construction

7. General Moly Partnerships
• POSCO 3rd largest global steel producer
POSCO,
• 20% Joint Venture Partner at Mt. Hope project
• $156M buy-in values Mt. Hope at $780M
• H l
Hanlong, Chi
Chinese conglomerate
l t
• Privately held, not state-owned
• $870M financing package to fully fund project
• Will become largest GMO shareholder, customer
• APERAM, former stainless division of ArcelorMittal
• GMO’s 2nd largest shareholder, 2nd largest customer
• Bought shares at $8.50 in late 2007
• Other Customers
• SeAH Besteel & Sojitz have off-take agreements
• Total sales fully committed for first five years of operations
• Half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14.00-$15.00/lb with ~80% upside participation
above floor
7
1. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring

8. Off-Take 100% Committed – First 5 Years
1. Hanlong (March 2010)
• 16.5M lb off-take over first five years,
additional rights LOM1
• 25% of off-take contains floor prices,
75% near spot1
2. APERAM2 (Nov 2007)
• 6.5M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement
for five years with floor price
protection3
t ti
• 3.0M lb off-take option for years 6-15,
requires 10% FD ownership of GMO
3. SeAH Besteel (May 2008)
( y )
• 4.0M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement
for five years with floor price
protection3
15.5M annual pounds committed with price protection
4.
4 Sojitz Corporation (Aug 2008) that includes:
• 1.0M lb off-take agreement for five • A hard floor price between $14.00-$15.00 per
years with floor price protection3,4 pound on average;
• 4.0M lb off-take agreement for five • PPI escalation annually;
years near spot3 4
3,4
• A modest discount to customer above floor price
1. Contingent upon completion of Hanlong transaction
2. APERAM was the stainless steel division of ArcelorMittal and was spun off as a separate public company as of January 25, 2011 8
3. Off-take agreements begin only when Mt. Hope reaches certain levels of commercial production and do not require General Moly to deliver product other than its own.
4. The Sojitz agreement is effective upon General Moly delivering production by January 2013; after January 2013, Sojitz has the option of continuing the contract.

9. Molybdenum Overview
• Essential metal for modern industry
• Industrial requirements demand better steels
q
• Strengthens steel, improves weldability, reduces brittleness, helps steel
perform in very high or very low temperatures
• Applications for energy, pipeline development, nuclear power plants,
desalination, refineries, catalyst for high sulphur fuels, motor vehicles
• Powerful anti-corrosive alloy for stainless and alloy steels
anti corrosive
• Molybdenum is vital in the products in which it is used with few
economical substitutes
• Moly demand is relatively price inelastic
9

10. Moly Demand Growth Projected to be Robust
• Moly demand to grow +30M lbs per year or approximately 128M lbs by
year,
2015 when Mt. Hope projected to be in full production.
• Moly use recovered and grew 18% in 2010 and 13% in 2011 (IMOA)
• Demand forecast to grow 5.5% CAGR through 2020 to reach over 800
million pounds annually
• Supported by global steel demand growth (~3.5% CAGR) and growing
intensity of use
World Moly Demand
1,000
869
800
600 537
400
200
0
2011p 2012p 2013p 2014p 2015p 2016p 2017p 2018p 2019p 2020p
10

11. Energy Complex Key to Demand
• Moly use is 40% energy related
with Transportation consuming
another 20%
• More sophisticated energy
production and transportation
driving moly use
• Examples include:
• Shale Gas Production
• Off-shore / deep-ocean oil production
• LNG development
• JP Morgan forecasts $30 trillion
to be spent globally on energy
energy-
supply infrastructure by 2035
• JP Morgan says Mo one of 5 key
commodities for 21st century1 Source: SMR Research
1. Commodities include Moly, Cobalt, Lithium, Indium, & Helium
11

12. China Use to Drive Global Demand
• China consumes ~31% of moly consumed today, while consuming 45-50%
31% 45 50%
of Aluminum & Copper consumed today
• China also produces & consumes 45-50% of global steel
• China focused on increasing stainless & specialty steel products
• $23 billion in new steel facilities approved
• JPMorgan forecasts China commodity consumption to approach 65% of
global consumption in next 10 20 years
10-20
China’s Share of Commodity Use Today & in 20 Years
70%
65%
60%
50% 45-50%
40%
31%
30%
20%
10%
0%
China Moly 2011 China Al, Cu, & Steel China 2020-2030 12
Source: IMOA, JP Morgan Research 2011 Commodity

13. Marginal Cost Limits Price Downside
$40
Historic Moly Prices
(January 2008 - September 2012)
$35
$30 Strong global
growth supports
$30+ /lb moly
prices
$25
Financial crisis
causes prices to
collapse
$20
Global uncertainty
cause prices to drift
sideways
y
$15
Marginal Cost of
Chinese Production
$10 Ex-China demand recovery supports prices Softer macro
further environment
weakens demand
offset by supply
Chinese buying & reductions in China
$5
marginal production
shuttered support
price recovery
$0
Source: Ryan’s Notes, Company Estimates
13

14. CPM Near-Term Price Forecast
• “A balanced market with price upside tied to Supply & Demand
A
Fundamentals”
• Declining inventory levels
• Price forecast in the $15-$20 range through 2014
Source: CPM Group
14
Source: CPM Group

15. General Moly Capital Structure
Stock on Issue
Shares Outstanding 91.2 M GMO Share Price, Volume
Sh Pi V l
Warrants1 1.0 M (Rolling One Year)
Equity Compensation1 3.3 M
$5 4
Diluted Shares 95.5 M
Balance Sheet (6/30/2012) 3.5
Cash on Hand 28 M
Debt 10 M $4
3
Top Owners
1. Hanlong 11.88M shares 13.0% FD
$/sh)
2. Coghill Capital Mgmt
g p g 8.55M shares 9.4% FD 2.5
Volume, Millions
s
GM Share Price ($
3. APERAM 8.26M shares 9.1% FD $3
4. Vanguard Group 3.63M shares 4.0% FD
5. BlackRock Trust Co. 3.62M shares 4.0% FD
2
6. Harbinger Group 1.40M shares 1.5% FD
7. Dimensional Fund 1.34M shares 1.5% FD
8. David Russell 1.29M shares 1.3% FD $2
MO
9.
9 Bruce Hansen 1.20M
1 20M shares 1.3%
1 3% FD 1.5
15
10. State Street Global 1.91M shares 1.3% FD
Analyst Coverage 1
Bank of America Merrill Lynch David Forster $1
CIBC Ian Parkinson
Dahlman Rose Anthony Young
y g 0.5
05
John Tumazos VIR John Tumazos
RBC Fraser Phillips
Stifel Nicolaus Paul Massoud $0 0
Average Target Price $4.26 per share
Insider Ownership
Directors & Mgmt 16.84M shares2 17.6% FD
1. Includes warrants and equity compensation that are “out of the money” 15
2. Actual ownership; does not include non-exercised equity compensation. Includes Hanlong’s shares

16. General Moly Overview
 Two world-class molybdenum assets
 Mt. Hope – One of the largest and highest-grade moly assets
Near-term Producer ✖
currently under development
 Liberty – a solid follow-on project to make General Moly the
Meaningful Follow-on Project ✖
largest primary moly producer in the world
Properties in Mining Friendly  Both assets located in Nevada, USA
Jurisdictions ✖
Significant Strategic Partnerships ✖  Partnerships with Hanlong, POSCO, APERAM, SeAH Besteel
and Sojitz Corporation support financing and off-take
Substantial Off k A
S b i l Off-take Agreements ✖  100% committed first five years
itt d fi t fi
 Full permit receipt anticipated H2 2012
Permitting Program Progressing ✖
Compelling Valuation ✖  Trading at 20-25% of NPV @ $15/lb moly
 Transaction with Hanlong provides substantially all funding
Financing Arranged ✖ required for Mt. Hope development1; Expect ~$930 million in
financing t close after permits received l t thi year
fi i to l ft it i d later this
16
1. Contingent upon Conditions Precedent contained within Hanlong Transaction occurring

17. Appendix
17

18. Experienced Team - Management
•CEO at General Moly since 2007.
Bruce Hansen •Previously served in multiple executive roles at Newmont Mining including Chief
Financial Officer and Senior VP, Operations Services & Development. Prior to that,
Chief Executive Officer was Senior VP of Corporate Development for Santa Fe Pacific Gold.
Dave Chaput •CFO at General Moly since 2007.
•More than 30 years of financial and operational experience in the metals and mining
y p p g
Chief Financial Officer industry, previously serving as CFO of The Doe Run Resources Corporation.
Bob Pennington •25 years experience in plant operations and 6 years in design engineering firm.
•Previously served as general manager of one of the largest open-pit/concentrator
Chief Operating Officer operations in the world, the Phelps Dodge Morenci mine in Arizona.
Lee Shumway •Joined General Moly in 2007; has served as Controller and Treasurer since 2009.
•Formerly the Director of Supply Chain - Nevada Operations for Newmont Mining; prior
Controller roles with Santa Fe Pacific Gold and Price Waterhouse.
Pat Rogers •25 years industry experience, including extensive work within the state of Nevada.
•Previously served as Operations Environmental Permitting Manager with Newmont
VP Permit. & Env. Compliance Mining.
•30 years of mining experience, predominately in Nevada.
Mike Iannacchione •Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp’s Marigold Mine and
Goldcorp s
General Manager at Round Mountain Mine, a Barrick Gold and Kinross Gold Joint
VP & GM Mt. Hope Venture.
Fred Zumwalt •25 years mining experience, primarily with Phelps Dodge and Freeport McMoran.
•Previously served as Assistant General Manager of Concentrator Operations at Cerro
y g p
Mt. Hope Mill Manager Verde, a large copper and molybdenum mine in Peru.
Randy Johnson •38 years mining experience with Santa Fe Pacific Gold, North American Coal Co.,
TXU/Luminant Mining and Westmoreland Coal Co. 18
Mt. Hope Mine Manager •Previously served as General Manager of the Kemmerer Mine in Wyoming.

19. Permitting Mt. Hope in Nevada, USA
Permitting in Nevada: Permitting Advantages for Mt. Hope
Mt
project:
1. Top-ranked US mining jurisdiction
1. No Threatened or Endangered
& top 10 ranked global mining
Species
S i
jurisdiction (Fraser Institute).
2. No sacred Native American sites
2. Nevada has long mining history
with no permits denied in last 20 3. No wetlands or Waters of the US
years (limits EPA involvement)
4.
4 Experienced permitting team led by
3. US BLM committed to reducing Pat Rogers (ex-Newmont)
agency delays
4. Battle Mountain Division of BLM
has approved many large mines
(ABX, NEM)
5. Supportive State and Federal
19
Government Representatives

20. China Development Bank
CDB L
Loan P
Process
 Major loan terms confirmed (Feb 2012)
• $665 million term loan with CDB lending 60% & syndicating balance
g y g
• 12 years including 30-month grace period for construction
• Hanlong corporate guarantee
• Customary loan covenants, security terms
 CDB hiring Western counsel (March 2012)
• GMO uses Shearman & Sterling
 Detailed term sheet negotiations (May-October)
 Final loan documentation & approvals (October-December)
 Loan Availability (Post ROD)
20

21. Mt. Hope Financing – Funding Sources &
Uses
Sources $m Uses $m
Eureka Moly: Eureka Moly
21
As of June 30, 2012

22. Water Rights History
Mt. Hope water right history
p g y Mt. Hope Water Well Map
• Project requires ~7,000 gpm fresh water for
milling operations
• Company purchased from existing water holders
in Kobeh Valley, essentially all available water
rights, sufficient for project water requirements
• Nevada State Engineer granted us water
permits in March 2009. That ruling was
successfully appealed in a Nevada District Court
in April 2010
Mt. Hope Water Impact Map
• Company re applied for water rights and
re-applied
Nevada State Engineer granted the applications
in a second ruling in July 2011
• That ruling has again been appealed and a court
hearing
h i was h ld A il 3 2012
held April 3, 2012.
• Nevada State District Court affirmed the State
Engineer’s ruling in all respects June 14, 2012
• Two parties appeal to NV Supreme Court
GMO considers appeals w/o merit
22

23. Equipment Procurement Status
• Approximately $67m paid on commitments for
$164 million in equipment orders
• Major milling equipment secured: Own or have
orders in place for Mt. Hope crusher, SAG mill &
ball mill mill drives, and roaster equipment
mill, drives
• Made $75 commitment to Caterpillar for haul fleet
and support equipment, including 18 CAT 793F
haul trucks
• Have letter of intent in place for large electric
mining shovels
• 4 Atlas Copco mine drills ordered
• As progress on permitting and financing
continues, will place orders for remainder of
equipment.
23

24. Moly Use: First vs. Second
24
Source: SMR Research Source: SMR Research

25. High Levels of Energy Investment
25
Source: JP Morgan Research