Glamis Gold Lawsuit Challenges New Standards From U.S. Department Of Interior On Imperial Project Permitting

Business Wire, April 14, 2000

Business Editors

RENO, Nevada--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 14, 2000

Glamis Gold Ltd. (TSE:GLG.)(NYSE:GLG) announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Glamis Imperial Corporation, commenced legal proceedings today challenging a recently released U.S. Department of Interior directive that substantially changes the rules governing mineral development on public lands. The opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior applies a new standard to Glamis' Imperial Project, different from that applied to other mine development projects within the California Desert Conservation Area or elsewhere in the United States.

Glamis believes the Solicitor's opinion contradicts the long-standing administrative practice of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is contrary to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Department of Interior's regulations. Further, the opinion disregards nearly twenty years of extensive land-use planning efforts in the southern California desert, as reflected in the BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980 and in the California Desert Protection Act enacted by Congress in 1994. Glamis proceeded with its plans to develop the Imperial Project only after the project site remained available for mining after a number of actions in recent years restricted the use of large amounts of land in the California desert.

The BLM has been reviewing Glamis' request for approval to mine the Imperial gold deposit in Imperial County, California for nearly six years. The Company believes the recent Solicitor's opinion requires the BLM to apply incorrect legal standards to completion of the Imperial Project permitting process. Glamis President and CEO Kevin McArthur said, "The established BLM decision-making process is compromised by this untested directive from the Department of the Interior. It is unfortunate to have to resort to legal action, but we believe we have no choice but to ask a court to address the Solicitor's opinion and determine the correct standards the BLM should apply in considering our permit."

The Solicitor's opinion responded to issues of cultural concern expressed by the Quechan Tribe. Though not on tribal property, the Quechan consider the Imperial Project lands, along with a large tract of southern California, eastern Arizona and southern Nevada, to be important for religious and cultural reasons. Glamis has been working for several years to address these issues and believes the opinion's expanded consideration of Native American cultural concerns fails to recognize the Company's ability and willingness under the existing rules to address those concerns in its mine plan. McArthur stated, "We continue to strive for dialogue with the Quechan people and believe we can successfully address their issues if given the opportunity."

Glamis has conducted mining operations in Imperial County for over twenty years at its Picacho Mine, located only seven miles from the proposed mine site. Glamis is recognized as an industry leader in the same heap leach processing technology that is planned for the Imperial Project. Its reclamation plan at Picacho was the first to be approved under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act in California and has been adopted by the State as the standard to be applied to closure of similar mines in the California desert. The Company's efforts at Picacho were rewarded with the California Mining Association's Excellence in Reclamation award for 1997, earning a commendation from the California State Assembly in 1998.

"We are very proud of our history of safe, responsible mining in Imperial County, the high-paying jobs we've created and the benefits of our operations to the depressed local economy," said McArthur. "We're anxious for the opportunity to continue these successes at the Imperial Mine."

Glamis is committed to protecting its shareholders' investment in the Imperial project and believes that a judicial review of the law governing the BLM's action on its permit is the most expedient method of resolving the issue. The suit was filed in the United States District Court in Reno, Nevada. The Company is hopeful that the legal proceeding can be completed within several months, although it could take a year or more. In the interim, Glamis has requested that the BLM temporarily suspend activities related to the Glamis permit pending the Court's review of the Interior Department directive.

Glamis Gold Ltd. is an intermediate gold producer operating gold mines in Nevada and California. The Company's newest gold mine, San Martin in Honduras, is currently under construction and is expected to reach commercial production in the fourth quarter of this year. With its strong cash position and no debt, Glamis continues to conduct exploration programs and to seek new opportunities for growth in the southwestern United States and Latin America.

Safe Harbor Statement under the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Except for the statements of historical fact contained herein, the information presented constitutes "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to those with respect to the price of gold, estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, reserve determination, the Company's hedging policy, permitting time lines and the timing and outcome of litigation, involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among others, the actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, future prices of gold, as well as those factors discussed in the section entitled "Other Considerations" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.