Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Comstock Mining 2016 Year End Results and Business Update Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Mr. Corrado De Gasperis. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you, Ron, and good morning everyone. It’s Corrado here, and welcome to our 2016 year end conference call. Last night, we filed our 10-K and I'll provide a brief summary of the information included both in our 10-K from last night and our press release from this morning. 2016 was a difficult year from a number of perspectives and I think I said more than once on past calls that we really have to first protect our line and asset platform, but before we could resume growing it. I'm reporting today that we've not only completed that work, but we strengthened our financial position, improved our liquidity and further consolidated and acquired valuable land. But also beyond that, we've completed a pretty dramatic restructuring of our cost, delivering one of if, not the lowest operating cost infrastructures for a production ready junior miner. We also dramatically reduced first and then refinanced our obligations with an outstanding strategic partner in GF Capital and now have removed and put behind us all of the obstacles that were impeding our growth. It's the clearest path we've had in a long time and we just obviously completed our audit with Deloitte and Touche, again resulting in a clean opinion and a quality yet efficient system of internal control, so all systems are green. I will keep my comments concise and I will be available for Q&A during this one hour call, and certainly for the rest of today and this week, we've been in a blackout period for a little bit longer than extended so I definitely look forward to catching up with all of you. I'm certain that we will address all of your questions, if you don't have a copy of today's release, you can certainly find a copy on our…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We'll now take the first question from the line of John Richard [ph], Private Investor. Please go ahead sir.

My question is, when is your next 43-101 coming out?

So, the timing with our Dayton production schedule, we'd really put at the end of this year. I think that what we're looking to do is not only drill to the magnitude of doubling the resource that we have there, but also establishing formally for the first time reserves. If you're picking up on my earlier comments, 80,000 to 100,000 ounces internally is right across here. If we can double that number to 150,000 to 200,000, we're going to be having a lot fun in terms of proven and probable, but recall that the measured and indicated and inferred resources 0.5 million, so you start to get into seven figures with the 1 million ounces. So, this thing will be really exciting. The timing of that -- it does depend on the success of the drilling and I mean that in a positive way; if it's more successful, we'll continue to do more of it, but there seems to be a very larger cutoff around October-ish in terms of the drill plans that our geologists have laid out, so you can be talking about late this year for the next with 43-101.

We'll now take the next question in queue from the line of Alex Gordon with Gordon Brothers. Please go ahead.

All sounds very good and very nice. We invested in the dollar longer drill that I'd like to remember in gold mine or gold situation. That was supposed to arrive, to eventually to increase proven reserves and to profitability and then just grow. We did increase reserves. We did arrive just about the profitability and then it's just stopped. Now, for a time being where a real estate operation, the news all along during this last years were always wonderful and everything is going wonderfully. So, why should I feel that we’re really going to achieve that and we're already going to start to mine again and leach again and actually be selling gold and silver?

Thank you, Alex. I mean first of all your support has been second to none and I don’t mean that only in the duration, but you've always had some of the most constructed input, not only in terms of how you think that the operation, but also communications to the market. And to answer your question, I think, it's important to acknowledge the disappointment, but the initial intention was to get Lucerne started at that smaller level, prove ourselves and then expand it. And really the hiccup and the disappointment which was about a year ago, was that the transition from the initial surface mining to underground, was more complex more involved. We have a lot of people, who have set the Lucerne including potential joint venture partners who want to develop it. It's very high on the list, in terms of continued development for the next phase of mining, but it proved a little bit more complex involved such that our capital resources made us pause, and hence the restructuring and hence the cleaning up and what we did last year. Have been said that, the Dayton Resource, the Lucerne Resource, the Spring Valley and even the northern properties including the Occidental are now all consolidated, all acquired, all entitled, all zoned; and there is a disappointment that we couldn’t transition seamlessly. But I honest don’t think that it takes away at all, the near term potential that we have and I would like to see two things to that point. One is some of the people who have come and offered to venture with us have made the comment that, most of the development projects that they are looking at and they are good one, seven to ten years from production and that can be within two years…

When do you think, we can start producing again?

So, I think that when we looked at it with SRK, which is one of the top mining consultants. We validated that we have a less than two year profile. So to me that means active drilling, active results, active progress towards reserve, production schedule, permits production, so end of 2018 beginning of 2019.

We will now take the next question from the line of Thom Calandra with TCR Network. Please go ahead.

So, I mean I have the same concerns, but I've have been there good times now and I know that there has been a lot of the things going on in the courts and administratively differently counties. Is there a chance here that the Company could become two companies, one commercial real estate and one mining?

So, yes, so let me answer it both ways. So first of all our non-mining assets have now all been put into a subsidiary called Comstock Real Estate, Inc. So, the answer is yes. Because it's already sort of been delineated the beauty of it is as those non-mining assets are not integrated into the mining assets and mining assets are all consolidated and contiguous and the non-mining assets are on the peripheral on the outskirts, on outside of that. So, it's very separable. Secondly, to your point, all of the administrative things be it the long tail that we had with the BLM to get a new dedicated haul road and right away which is a 100% complete. The rezoning and entitlement of the Dayton, which opens the door to this near-term production plan that I just spoke about. I never thought it would go to the Supreme Court, but to go there and be reaffirmed, it's a brick foundation, it's not a sand foundation, and I got to tell you that the most impactful thing to me is the percentage of my time I could say roughly using the 80-20 rule. I am spending 80% of my time you know managing all these things and now they're done. They're done in an irreversible way, right. So, I feel I don't know maybe liberated is the right word to really start you know growing this value rather than protesting it.

Yes, and then the other thing Corrado that's fairly exciting about having that commercial real estate in a separate unit, something that most investors don't realize. You know the SRK, is it just going to be at Dayton or is it going to be across other properties on the mine development, increased resource and so on?

So, it'll be across all the properties including Lucerne, including Occidental. But the near term effort would be to -- so, let me say it differently, when we update to 43-101, you'll get full updates on Lucerne. You'll get full updates on all that's happened over the last three or four years, but what will be I think central and meaningful is the growth of the Dayton Resource, the establishment of Dayton reserves and a straight path to proven and plausible feasibility. And with SRK, SRK really came in with GF Capital because they saw it as really a huge value center, especially in terms of near term development, and they wanted to get a really independent view, and we were thrilled with the outcome. We're essentially reaffirming all the work that we've done so far, I mean that really kicks out a big question mark of us in terms of the first step to this feasibility. The remaining drilling and metallurgical work will get us to the second set and I want to be specific on metallurgy. When we did our column test in 2011 and 2012 even though we were focused on Lucerne, we also did Dayton. The Lucerne averaged about 74% yield for gold. Dayton was higher. Lucerne actually came out closer to 90% full, so we're absolutely thrilled with that. That's usually one of the most certain variable that you'll get even in feasibility and prefeasibility studies is metallurgy, and to have an evidence foundation on such high yield it’s outstanding and SRK looked at that work. We were using 80% in our preliminary estimate. I think they use 84% based on the evidence that was available, so we're being even conservative in that regard.

We'll now take our next question from the line of David Brigham with Brigham Investments. Please go ahead.

Along the line of some previous comments, you've alluded to a number of investors who are interested in joint venturing and so forth. But what's holding things back I guess? What's the principle objection what slows it down from their point of view? And are these countries required the same man disclosure agreements and so forth. I think that one thing that's holding your company back is the low stock price. You just don't have a lot of options there. And would be a good thing, if rather than having a sign confidentiality agreement and standstill agreements let them buy some stock for heaven sake, if they feel like it; let them rumor to their friends that they so choose above the grade opportunity at Comstock, it seems to me -- we're saddled with the lack of visibility, the assumptions everybody makes is that if it's $0.50 stock it can't be worth very much?

So, your comments are very good. So, let me say that in the two principle cases where we're discussing specific possibilities, we do have non-disclosure agreements, I do think it's important that the work is done to a proper conclusion and it's definitive before -- now having said that, I don't think that precludes us from creating much better visibility and frankly we had two overhangs, one were these obligation that we've now really refinanced and then gave us ourselves headroom on, and then secondly the hiccup that I mentioned to Alex Gordon on the Lucerne, really I think did give us a hit in credibility in terms of mine development. So even though we've produced for four years and we ultimately delivered a very low cost profile and we had great metallurgical yields and before we permitted people were expecting -- and I said the expectation frankly of a more seamless transition and when it hiccupped it hurt our credibility having said that the Dayton and Lucerne and some of these partners were very strongly reestablished that, I have no doubt. So, in part we need to explain it to new and potentially new investors and in part we do need to get to it, and I think both are going to happen right here right now in 2017.

We'll now take our next question from the line of James Bell [ph], Private Investor. Please go ahead.

We've been talking about this joint venturing stuff. Is that often doing to the joint venturing on the northern targets to -- coming from production transfer?

Yes, there is. It's been less direct. But there's a series of claims in the northern extensions, the Yellow Jacket and Kentuck, which are just absolutely tremendous high grade targets, and actually the Yellow Jacket was one of the more famous Comstock mines that never got developed because of a sort of catastrophic fire that occurred there and killed some 37 miners, so we loved that one. And then the Occidental which is sort of this evolving parallel trend that the original Comstock Lode is garnering some interest as well. So, I don't think that you're limited, and that was one of my points, if we have a plan that could accelerate Dayton Spring Valley and we've a 100% on our own then you don't need a partner in that context. If there's constraints in resources maybe the Occidental we jump started if there's complexities that may take some more horsepower, maybe a partner helps us get to Lucerne going, so that's really what we're deliberating, it’s the best way to put the pieces of the puzzle but it should -- the opportunities are tremendous, so, up until now, I guess in fairness we were still adding to the land package we were still consolidating and entitling up through and including the Supreme Court. It sounds like an excuse, so I fell bad even saying it, but I feel better saying it’s a 100% done in behind us. So, I really want to be spending my time value creating activities individually or with partners but let's get it moving.

We will now our next question from the line of Harvey Morca [ph], Private Investor. Please go ahead.

Few questions for you. You've gone to a couple of conferences back in September. You went to Precious Metal and then in January went to Vancouver. Can you give us a little insight into what there is anything was yielded from those?

Yes. So, I didn’t make it to the Red Creek for the Precious Metal Conference because we were embroiled in some of the refinancing work and some of the local activities that we had. I did have some proxies there that said that, that it was one of the more robust conferences. It's actually my favorite one to go to because the institutional representation. So, it was quite robust. Vancouver is more of a retail conference and the feedback from Vancouver is guess, positive on two fronts right. One, there isn't really a lot of institutional investor represented, I would say almost none. The traffic from the retail investor was over whelming. I mean it was standing room only everywhere even when I presented at on our company, full room. When the key notes speakers were talking, people were standing in the hallways. And for me personally, I was able to reconnect with a lot of industry players, some peers, some potential partners et cetera. But I did leave there thinking, there has been volatility of interest, but it seems to be consolidating and strengthening. So, our calendar for '17 is robust. Our calendar for '16 was almost zero. So, I look forward to this year.

Our pie chart on the annual report shows like shareholder known as HNW, they own 14%. Who are they?

So, no, it's not. So that stands for high-net-worth individuals, right. So, that just sort of a bucket where we put folks that aren’t professional, they are not necessarily professional money managers or institutions, but they're credited investors.

That's the people falling in today.

Yes, yes.

Another question is Sun Valley, was gold is our third largest holder? And back in February, they disclosed the 4.48% of their holdings. Was there a reason for that?

They disclosed it?

Yes.

Yes. So, I think that, I think it was a routine filing and I think there position didn’t change. So, I think it was may be just an update as filing. They were previously a preferred holder and then it was converted into common, so there may have been some clean up reporting to do. But the good news is there, they been one of our stalwart.

So, they're still strong, they didn’t disclose yet?

No, not at all.

Another comment was that, we're supposed to get up to 100,000 ounces per year production. When do we anticipate that?

The 100,000 target really was reflection of a combination of the Dayton in a 30,000 to 40,000 range, which we're seeing sort of materializing and manifested so very well with our plans that are in front of us. And then the Lucerne which we were looking to contribute let's say that 60,000 range. So, we really need the two in the near term to achieve that kind of level now the Dayton alone the Spring Valley is just a tremendously long potential but we don’t have anything in our immediate plans that would take it would still take a meaningful amount and a step out drilling for the Dayton it would be something bigger than let's say this 35,000 to 40,000 ounce range and it would take the combination of the two. And we don’t have any immediate plans to start drilling and on the Lucerne, so I would characterize it this way. If we had a partner, the Lucerne could accelerate as faster, faster than Dayton quite frankly because it's already permitted. If we were on our own, we would probably be waiting for some of the cash flows that the Dayton would generate to fund the Lucerne, right. So, in that context, you are either saying that Lucerne is also within the next two years similar to Dayton with the partner lying parallel or that was certain then gets prioritized behind the Dayton, which means it would be a much longer preposition three to four years on. So, squarely and across here of what we want to accomplish.

Okay, back to the potential partners in their confidentiality agreement. Are they precluded from being able to buy shares at this time and open last time?

No, it's just information confidentiality. There is no stand at all provisions or anything like that.

So being at to this excellent value that were at I guess I don’t understand why they are not coming and involving up all the systems get?

It's interesting because while I mean I think what you are going to see buying comment and I don’t -- if I look at our target list, it's much more institutional investor money than let's say strategic or partner money. There has been and in particular with one of these people there has been a history of making equity investments in their entire gets that's in the stock. Right, and I think part of the stop was when people were doing that in 2010, 2011 wonderful but then when 2013 and 2014 came around it wasn’t so wonderful and then in prioritizing their capital that really go into the ground. To produce ounces but it's not but having said that there is still plenty of amount there that do invest equity positions, you are seeing it happened or company like gold standard debentures and others are getting partnered that not only contribute to the drilling capital but also take stake. So it's still possible my focus sincerely to this year is targeting institutional investors and I think with the work that we have done now it's a tough sell when you are transitioning from one mode to another when you are restructuring cost and refinancing liability it's not at cost at all, but all rest have began and behind you. So I'm, that's really what I mean about sort of feeling liberated, not only to physically get it out there, but the story is strong.

Okay, last question. When is our Annual Meeting?

I just listen at the Board and I throughout the three days either the third or fourth week of May or the first week of June. Like June, It's the three Thursdays, the third week of May, fourth week away and having all that down within a week or so and then just get it out there, so people can get it on their calendars, it’s going to be good.

We'll now take our next question from the line of Jonathan Way with Wedbush Securities. Please go ahead.

What is your cost to hold that real estate, the commercial stuff?

It's like nil, like property taxes in Northern Nevada sector are almost nothing. So, the only one that had a clearing cost that one was a hotel when we were operating it, but we've leased it over the last two years and it’s cash positive, so I might probably saying that it's zero, but if it's anything $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 thousand.

Why is the $14 million pass through?

Because the characterization of the sale would be ordinary income and we have net operating losses that will fully cover that.

Why is this REIT perception of your so lethal?

I really think it has to do with you know what I was saying you know last March, we said look we're not transitioning quickly into the next stage of production, we're going to need to restructure these liabilities and reduce our cost and frankly 2016 was just pre-occupied with that. It's done and behind us now, and we can get out there and really start updating people and making sure that they really understand the price environment. I think that if there was concern about liabilities that the big overhang, you should have eliminated that now with the refinancing that we just did, but then what are you doing? Are you developing something, are you drilling, are the assets growing are the results coming, and now that we have a clear plan for that I think the story gets very-very interesting and from evaluation perspective it's very-very interesting, so I'm keen to get out there and start getting that traction.

What is your relationship with the Mr. Winfield, currently?

Very good, very good, I think John and I talk, in the beginning it used to be three-four times a week, now it's once every couple weeks but very good.

Would you ever consider have a reverse stock split?

So, that question's come up a couple of times, you know in the context of concerns about delisting, and we don't have any concerns about delisting, you know the New York Stock Exchange actually just modified their rules and we're still in a very-very good place when it comes to all of that, I don't really see us ever being at risk for a delisting. We talked about it at one of the last annual meeting if we would consider it and the answer was if it has some kind of a positive connotation or some kind of a positive marketing or it opened up new markets for us we would consider it. There's no plans or intentions to do it now. The good news for us is that if we were meaning to do it and reverse are authorized in the same proportion as our outstanding we can do it in a matter of days, right, so that that would have no impact on the capital structure and we be protective but we don't really see that as a need going forward but if we needed to we could do it quickly.

I've seen you work with some other companies, Resolute Energy for one, and it worked incredibly well?

So, in conjunction with the good business plan and the conjunction with a good catalyst I think I agree with you. I mean -- I agree, it worked very well. We don't need to do with any kind of defensive context which is probably the good news in the discussion.

We'll now take our next question from the line of Scott Van Den Berg with Century Management. Please go ahead.

This is Arnold Van Den Berg. Two questions. One, you were talking about 2018, 2019 production, how big do you think that production would be? And how much cost you need to get there?

So, the economics shale and the profile that we created for Dayton and which I mentioned earlier, was just about 80,000 to 100,000 ounces to start, but it's like a 36,000 to 37,000 ounce per year scheme. It's less than $600 cost to produce, and in part because of three important variables, good metallurgy yield over 80% estimated, low strip ratio and really-really good grades. I mentioned it, but it's worth repeating that the Dayton economics show as the 0.05 -- greater than 0.05 ounce per ton grade profile. The Lucerne was 0.028. It's a significantly higher grade which then drives much better cost performance.

So, the bottom line is what level of production would you expect in those two years and what would be the cost of actually doing?

35,000 to 40,000 ounces of production per year, cost of $585 per ounce, $590 per ounce, cash flow of about 18 million to 20 million per year.

And how much money would it take before you actually start producing the cash flow?

So, there's about -- and it's a little bit variable about 3 million to 5 million that could go into drilling and permitting and then there's a question of do we want to have a separate facility or use the central facility which even then is only about 10 million to 12 million. So, there's -- the main cost there is really the 3 million to 5 million of drilling and permitting.

So, you're saying that if you spent 3 million to 5 million you would be producing 36 ounces?

If we spent 3 million to 5 million our expectation was that we would grow the magnitude of that reserve, yes it would be 35 ounce to 40 ounce profile, and it would be permitted. So, that's right.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The time allotted for questions-and-answers has come to a close. I would now like to turn the call back over to Mr. De Gasperis for closing remarks.

So, I want to thank everyone for their time and attention. I want to let everybody know that I'm available for a follow-up, so please feel free to reach out and then I look forward to not only being out meeting with you and meeting with new investors, but also it won't be very long mid April, when we will be having our first quarter call. I look forward to some very positive update. Thank you everyone.

Ladies and gentleman this concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. And you may now disconnect your line.