|
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) |
| |
1000
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number) |
| |
32-0633823
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification Number) |
|
|
Danielle Carbone
James A. Mercadante Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 541-5400 |
| |
Quentin Markin
Stikeman Elliott LLP 666 Burrard Street, Suite 1700 Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 2X8 Canada (604) 631-1300 |
| |
Christopher J. Cummings
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 (212) 373-3000 |
| |
James Clare
Christopher Doucet Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place, P.O. Box 130, Toronto, ON, M5X 1A4 Canada (416) 863-1200 |
|
| Large and accelerated filer | | | ☐ | | | Accelerated filer | | | ☐ | | | Non-accelerated filer | | | ☒ | | | Smaller reporting company | | | ☒ | | |
Emerging growth
company |
| | ☒ | |
| | |
Page
|
| |||
| | | | 1 | | | |
| | | | 21 | | | |
| | | | 23 | | | |
| | | | 56 | | | |
| | | | 58 | | | |
| | | | 60 | | | |
| | | | 61 | | | |
| | | | 62 | | | |
| | | | 64 | | | |
| | | | 79 | | | |
| | | | 90 | | | |
| | | | 151 | | | |
| | | | 159 | | | |
| | | | 166 | | | |
| | | | 171 | | | |
| | | | 175 | | | |
| | | | 179 | | | |
| | | | 183 | | | |
| | | | 187 | | | |
| | | | 192 | | | |
| | | | 200 | | | |
| | | | 200 | | | |
| | | | 201 | | | |
| | | | 201 | | | |
| | | | 202 | | | |
| | | | F-1 | | |
Domain
|
| |
Classification
|
| |
Tonnes
|
| |
Total
Cu % |
| |
Total Soluble
Cu %(2) |
| |
Total
Cu Tonnes |
| |
Acid Soluble
Cu Tonnes |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
| | | | Indicated | | | | | | 274,000,000 | | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | 0.25 | | | | | | 2,539,000 | | | | | | 684,000 | | |
Total
|
| | | | Inferred | | | | | | 248,754,000 | | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | 0.44 | | | | | | 2,255,000 | | | | | | 1,085,000 | | |
Name
|
| |
Title
|
| |
Experience
|
|
Eric Finlayson
|
| |
President
|
| |
•
Geologist with almost 40 years of global multi-commodity experience and extensive industry contacts
•
Served as Senior Advisor, Business Development from 2013 until 2015 of HPX before being appointed to President of Ivanhoe Electric in 2020
•
Previously, spent 24 years with Rio Tinto, including 5 years as Global Head of Exploration
•
Led teams at Rio Tinto responsible for discovery of major copper, nickel, iron ore, bauxite and diamond deposits
|
|
Charles Forster
|
| |
SVP, Exploration
|
| |
•
Professional geoscientist with more than 45 years of diversified mineral exploration in Canada, the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa, Portugal, China, and Mongolia
•
Formerly, SVP Exploration at Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia for Ivanhoe Mines
•
Led a team of multi-national and Mongolian geologists in the discovery and delineation of the world-class Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold porphyry deposit
|
|
Mark Gibson
|
| |
COO
|
| |
•
Professional geoscientist with more than 32 years of wide-ranging experience as a geoscientist and manager in the natural resources sector
•
Joined HPX in 2011 as the founding CEO
•
Held previous positions at Anglo American and founded a geophysical services company focused on managing seismic surveys
|
|
Graham Boyd
|
| |
VP, U.S. Projects
|
| |
•
Geologist with over 16 years of base and precious metals experience
•
Held various senior roles at HPX and several Ivanhoe companies
•
Worked with Ivanhoe Australia in 2008, where he was part of the discovery team for Merlin, the world’s highest-grade molybdenum-rhenium deposit
•
A key contributor to delineation and resource development of the Mount Dore Cu, and Mt Elliott-SWAN Cu-Au deposits
|
|
Glen Kuntz
|
| |
Chief Technical and Innovation Officer
|
| |
•
Professional geologist and mining executive with over 30 years of experience in exploration, project development, open pit and underground mining operations and business development across a variety of commodities and mining types/methods
•
Formerly director of exploration projects at Yamana Gold Inc. (“Yamana Gold”)
•
Formerly President and CEO of Mega Precious Metals Inc., a successful junior exploration company, which was acquired by Yamana Gold
•
Managed over 200 technical studies on various projects and mines around the world over the past 10 years
|
|
Assumed Initial Public
Offering Price per Share |
| |
Shares Issuable
Upon Conversion of Our Outstanding Series 1 Convertible Notes(1) |
| |
Shares Issuable
Upon Conversion of Our Outstanding Series 2 Convertible Notes(2) |
| |
Shares Issuable to
CAR Upon closing of this Offering(3) |
| |
Shares Outstanding
After this Offering |
| ||||||||||||
$11.75 | | | | | 5,419,950 | | | | | | 8,209,038 | | | | | | 945,626 | | | | | | 92,887,948 | | |
$12.12 | | | | | 5,419,950 | | | | | | 7,958,432 | | | | | | 916,758 | | | | | | 92,608,474 | | |
$12.50 | | | | | 5,419,950 | | | | | | 7,716,496 | | | | | | 888,888 | | | | | | 92,338,668 | | |
| | |
In millions
|
| |||
Santa Cruz | | | | | | | |
Land Acquisition & Payments
|
| | | $ | 39 | | |
Exploration & Development Activities
|
| | | | 29 | | |
Tintic | | | | | | | |
Exploration & Development Activities
|
| | | | 17 | | |
Land Acquisition & Payments
|
| | | | 9 | | |
Total Material Projects
|
| | | | 94 | | |
Hog Heaven | | | | | | | |
Land Acquisition & Payments
|
| | | | 5 | | |
Exploration Activities
|
| | | | 5 | | |
Ivory Coast Project | | | | | | | |
Exploration Activities
|
| | | | 4 | | |
Total Key Projects
|
| | | | 13 | | |
Total Other Mineral Projects
|
| | | | 9 | | |
Construction and Deployment of Additional Typhoon™ Units
|
| | | | 10 | | |
General & Administrative
|
| | | | 18 | | |
D&O Insurance
|
| | | | 14 | | |
Working Capital
|
| | | | 2 | | |
Total Uses of Funds
|
| | | $ | 161 | | |
| | |
March 31, 2022
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
Actual
|
| |
As Adjusted
|
| |
Pro Forma As
Adjusted(2) |
| |||||||||
| | |
(in thousands)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents
|
| | | $ | 29,769 | | | | | $ | 112,369 | | | | | $ | 277,322 | | |
Debt | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Series 1 Convertible Notes(1)
|
| | | $ | 57,857 | | | | | $ | 57,857 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Series 2 Convertible Notes
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 86,200 | | | | | | — | | |
VRB Convertible Bond
|
| | | | 24,365 | | | | | | 24,365 | | | | | | 24,365 | | |
Total debt
|
| | | $ | 82,222 | | | | | $ | 168,422 | | | | | $ | 24,365 | | |
Stockholders’ equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, $0.0001 par value; 750,000,000 shares authorized; 63,925,334 shares outstanding, actual; 700,000,000 shares authorized; 92,608,474 shares outstanding, pro forma as adjusted
|
| | | $ | 6 | | | | | $ | 6 | | | | | | 9 | | |
Paid-in capital
|
| | | | 76,625 | | | | | | 76,625 | | | | | | 385,689 | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | | | (67,766) | | | | | | (67,766) | | | | | | (61,413) | | |
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
| | | | (1,400) | | | | | | (1,400) | | | | | | (1,400) | | |
Non-controlling interests
|
| | | | 3,736 | | | | | | 3,736 | | | | | | 3,736 | | |
Total stockholders’ equity
|
| | | $ | 11,201 | | | | | $ | 11,201 | | | | | $ | 326,621 | | |
Total capitalization
|
| | | $ | 93,423 | | | | | | 179,623 | | | | | $ | 350,986 | | |
|
Assumed initial public offering price
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 12.12 | | |
|
Consolidated net tangible book value per share as of March 31, 2022
|
| | | $ | 0.12 | | | | | | | | |
|
Increase in consolidated net tangible book value per share attributable to pro forma adjustments
|
| | | | 3.38 | | | | | | | | |
|
Pro forma consolidated net tangible book value per share as of March 31, 2022
|
| | | | | | | | | | 3.50 | | |
|
Dilution per share to new investors
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | 8.62 | | |
| | |
Shares Purchased
|
| |
Total Consideration
|
| |
Average Price Per
Share |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Number
|
| |
Percent
|
| |
Amount
|
| |
Percent
|
| |||||||||||||||
Existing Holders
|
| | | | 78,220,474 | | | | | | 84% | | | |
$306.9 million
|
| | | | 64% | | | | | $ | 3.92 | | |
New Investors
|
| | | | 14,388,000 | | | | | | 16% | | | |
$174.4 million
|
| | | | 36% | | | | | $ | 12.12 | | |
Total
|
| | | | 92,608,474 | | | | | | 100% | | | |
$481.3 million
|
| | | | 100% | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |
Three Months Ended
March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| |||||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 4,652 | | | | | $ | 4,633 | | | | | $ | 3,752 | | | | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | 1,559 | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | | | (1,520) | | | | | | (1,785) | | | | | | (1,806) | | | | | | (52) | | | | | | (317) | | |
Gross profit
|
| | | | 3,132 | | | | | | 2,848 | | | | | | 1,946 | | | | | | 6,710 | | | | | | 1,242 | | |
Expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||
Exploration expenses
|
| | | | 39,505 | | | | | | 14,094 | | | | | | 12,906 | | | | | | 17,323 | | | | | | 6,261 | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | | 20,402 | | | | | | 11,651 | | | | | | 10,768 | | | | | | 5,226 | | | | | | 2,795 | | |
Research and development expenses
|
| | | | 3,825 | | | | | | 3,629 | | | | | | 4,171 | | | | | | 1,331 | | | | | | 956 | | |
Net loss attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||
Common stockholders or parent
|
| | | | 59,320 | | | | | | 25,234 | | | | | | 24,634 | | | | | | 15,452 | | | | | | 4,653 | | |
Comprehensive loss attributable to:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||
Common stockholders or parent
|
| | | | 59,284 | | | | | | 25,477 | | | | | | 24,368 | | | | | | 15,350 | | | | | | 4,639 | | |
Basic and diluted loss per share attributable to common stockholders or parent
|
| | | $ | 0.96 | | | | | $ | 0.42 | | | | | $ | 0.41 | | | | | $ | 0.24 | | | | | $ | 0.08 | | |
Total assets
|
| | | | 153,531 | | | | | | 71,721 | | | | | | 52,777 | | | | | | 141,655 | | | | | | 68,510 | | |
Total non-current liabilities
|
| | | | 85,134 | | | | | | 7,805 | | | | | | 4,469 | | | | | | 89,041 | | | | | | 6,915 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |
Three Months Ended
March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| |||||||||||||||
Revenues: | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
CGI: Software licensing and data processing services
|
| | | $ | 4,512 | | | | | $ | 4,212 | | | | | $ | 3,032 | | | | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | 1,486 | | |
VRB: Energy storage systems
|
| | | | 140 | | | | | | 236 | | | | | | 442 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 73 | | |
Other
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 185 | | | | | | 278 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 4,652 | | | | | $ | 4,633 | | | | | $ | 3,752 | | | | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | 1,559 | | |
Cost of sales: | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
CGI: Software licensing and data processing services
|
| | | $ | 1,427 | | | | | $ | 1,508 | | | | | $ | 1,035 | | | | | $ | 52 | | | | | $ | 265 | | |
VRB: Energy storage systems
|
| | | | 93 | | | | | | 157 | | | | | | 369 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 52 | | |
Other
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 120 | | | | | | 402 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 1,520 | | | | | $ | 1,785 | | | | | $ | 1,806 | | | | | $ | 52 | | | | | $ | 317 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |
Three Months Ended
March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| |||||||||||||||
Exploration Expenses:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||
San Matias, Colombia
|
| | | $ | 13,789 | | | | | $ | 5,399 | | | | | $ | 5,456 | | | | | $ | 2,376 | | | | | $ | 3,171 | | |
Santa Cruz, USA
|
| | | | 9,966 | | | | | | 923 | | | | | | 943 | | | | | | 9,798 | | | | | | 197 | | |
Tintic, USA
|
| | | | 2,474 | | | | | | 1,336 | | | | | | 2,346 | | | | | | 289 | | | | | | 364 | | |
Hog Heaven, USA
|
| | | | 2,029 | | | | | | 336 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 560 | | | | | | 640 | | |
Ivory Coast Project, Ivory Coast
|
| | | | 1,931 | | | | | | 10 | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | 21 | | | | | | 487 | | |
Pinaya, Peru
|
| | | | 1,774 | | | | | | 1,613 | | | | | | 641 | | | | | | 686 | | | | | | 216 | | |
Desert Mountain, USA
|
| | | | 821 | | | | | | 177 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | 184 | | |
Perseverance, USA
|
| | | | 742 | | | | | | 488 | | | | | | 610 | | | | | | 1,493 | | | | | | 54 | | |
Yangayu, Papua New Guinea
|
| | | | 497 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 318 | | | | | | — | | |
South Voisey’s Bay, Canada
|
| | | | 355 | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | 11 | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | 2 | | |
Bitter Creek, USA
|
| | | | 340 | | | | | | 174 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 359 | | | | | | 13 | | |
Lincoln, USA
|
| | | | 235 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 13 | | | | | | — | | |
Project generation and other
|
| | | | 4,552 | | | | | | 3,620 | | | | | | 2,882 | | | | | | 1,400 | | | | | | 933 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 39,505 | | | | | $ | 14,094 | | | | | $ | 12,906 | | | | | $ | 17,323 | | | | | $ | 6,261 | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |
Three Months Ended
March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| |||||||||||||||
Research and development expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
CGI: Software licensing and data processing services
|
| | | $ | 2,606 | | | | | $ | 2,671 | | | | | $ | 2,708 | | | | | $ | 963 | | | | | $ | 704 | | |
VRB: Energy storage systems
|
| | | | 1,032 | | | | | | 770 | | | | | | 1,249 | | | | | | 319 | | | | | | 204 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 187 | | | | | | 188 | | | | | | 214 | | | | | | 49 | | | | | | 48 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 3,825 | | | | | $ | 3,629 | | | | | $ | 4,171 | | | | | $ | 1,331 | | | | | $ | 956 | | |
| | |
March 31, 2022
|
| |
March 31, 2021
|
| |
Percentage change
year-over-year |
| |||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Software licensing and data processing services: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | 1,486 | | | | | | 355% | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | | | (52) | | | | | | (265) | | | | | | (80)% | | |
Gross profit
|
| | | | 6,710 | | | | | | 1,221 | | | | | | 450% | | |
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
Percentage change
year-over-year |
| |||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Data processing services: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 4,512 | | | | | $ | 4,212 | | | | | | +7% | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | | | (1,427) | | | | | | (1,508) | | | | | | -5% | | |
Gross profit
|
| | | $ | 3,085 | | | | | $ | 2,704 | | | | | | +14% | | |
| | |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
Percentage change
year-over-year |
| |||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Data processing services: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 4,212 | | | | | $ | 3,032 | | | | | | +39% | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | | | (1,508) | | | | | | (1,035) | | | | | | +45% | | |
Gross profit
|
| | | $ | 2.704 | | | | | $ | 1,997 | | | | | | +35% | | |
| | |
Year Ended December 31,
|
| |
Three Months Ended
March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| |||||||||||||||
Net cash (used in) provided by: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ||||||||||
Operating activities
|
| | | $ | (47,832) | | | | | $ | (22,984) | | | | | $ | (22,979) | | | | | $ | (14,619) | | | | | $ | (9,175) | | |
Investing activities
|
| | | | (22,632) | | | | | | (16,746) | | | | | | (9,495) | | | | | | (5,600) | | | | | | (1,192) | | |
Financing activities
|
| | | | 110,976 | | | | | | 44,087 | | | | | | 33,957 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,544 | | |
Effect of foreign exchange on cash
|
| | | | (3) | | | | | | 285 | | | | | | 124 | | | | | | 138 | | | | | | 63 | | |
Total change in cash
|
| | | $ | 40,509 | | | | | $ | 4,642 | | | | | $ | 1,607 | | | | | $ | (20,081) | | | | | $ | (4,760) | | |
| | |
Currency by Denomination (in USD Equivalents)
|
| | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
US dollars
|
| |
Canadian
dollars |
| |
Chinese
Renminbi |
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jurisdiction of Entity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
USA
|
| | | $ | 3,974 | | | | | $ | 403 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 4,377 | | |
Cayman Islands
|
| | | | 14,433 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 14,435 | | |
Canada
|
| | | | 4,120 | | | | | | 4,986 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9.106 | | |
China
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,132 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,132 | | |
British Virgin Islands
|
| | | | 417 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 419 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 107 | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 192 | | | | | | 300 | | |
Total
|
| | | | 23,051 | | | | | | 5,394 | | | | | | 1,132 | | | | | | 192 | | | | | | 29,769 | | |
| | |
Currency by Denomination (in USD Equivalents)
|
| | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
US dollars
|
| |
Canadian
dollars |
| |
Chinese
Renminbi |
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||
(In thousands)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jurisdiction of Entity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
USA
|
| | | $ | 20,314 | | | | | $ | 392 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 20,706 | | |
Cayman Islands
|
| | | | 15,212 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 15,212 | | |
Canada
|
| | | | 2,585 | | | | | | 7,432 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 10,017 | | |
China
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,192 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,192 | | |
British Virgin Islands
|
| | | | 449 | | | | | | 2 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 451 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 136 | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 135 | | | | | | 272 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 38,696 | | | | | $ | 7,827 | | | | | $ | 3,192 | | | | | $ | 135 | | | | | $ | 49,850 | | |
| | |
Payments due by period (in thousands)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Total
|
| |
Less than
1 year |
| |
1-3 years
|
| |
4-5 years
|
| |
More than
5 years |
| |||||||||||||||
Long-term debt obligations(1)
|
| | | $ | 74,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 50,000 | | | | | $ | 24,000 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Leases
|
| | | | 1,456 | | | | | | 553 | | | | | | 885 | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | — | | |
Deferred consideration payable(2)
|
| | | | 24,741 | | | | | | 24,741 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other long-term contractual liabilities(3)
|
| | | | 412 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 412 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total contractual obligations
|
| | | $ | 100,609 | | | | | $ | 25,294 | | | | | $ | 51,297 | | | | | $ | 24,018 | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
Payments due by period (in thousands)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Total
|
| |
Less than
1 year |
| |
1-3 years
|
| |
4-5 years
|
| |
More than
5 years |
| |||||||||||||||
Long-term debt obligations(1)
|
| | | $ | 74,000 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 50,000 | | | | | $ | 24,000 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Leases
|
| | | | 399 | | | | | | 342 | | | | | | 57 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Deferred consideration payable(2)
|
| | | | 26,562 | | | | | | 26,562 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other long-term contractual liabilities(3)
|
| | | | 865 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 865 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total contractual obligations
|
| | | $ | 101,826 | | | | | $ | 26,904 | | | | | $ | 50,922 | | | | | $ | 24,000 | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
Grant Date
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
| |
0.23%
|
|
Dividend yield
|
| |
nil
|
|
Estimated Volatility
|
| |
73.7%
|
|
Expected option life
|
| |
2.6 years
|
|
| | |
1-Year as of
March 31, 2021 |
| |
5-Year as of
March 31, 2017 |
| |
10-Year as of
March 31, 2012 |
| |||||||||
Copper
|
| | | | 18.9% | | | | | | 77.8% | | | | | | 24.2% | | |
Gold
|
| | | | 13.7% | | | | | | 56.6% | | | | | | 16.8% | | |
Silver
|
| | | | 2.4% | | | | | | 38.0% | | | | | | (22.6%) | | |
Nickel
|
| | | | 100.3% | | | | | | 218.3% | | | | | | 80.8% | | |
Oil
|
| | | | 69.5% | | | | | | 99.2% | | | | | | (2.7%) | | |
S&P 500
|
| | | | 14.0% | | | | | | 91.3% | | | | | | 221.7% | | |
FTSE 100 Index
|
| | | | 6.6% | | | | | | 7.4% | | | | | | 7.1% | | |
Nikkei Index
|
| | | | (13.2%) | | | | | | 33.7% | | | | | | 87.6% | | |
MSCI World Index
|
| | | | 8.6% | | | | | | 64.1% | | | | | | 132.7% | | |
Type
|
| |
Short title
|
| |
Country
|
| |
Grant Date
|
| |
Grant Number
|
| |
Expiration
Date |
|
Patent
|
| |
Current signal generator and method of implementing such a generator
|
| |
France
|
| |
16/02/2018
|
| |
FR2980653
|
| |
21/09/2031
|
|
| International (PCT) | | | | | | | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| Australia | | | 05/01/2017 | | | AU2012311429 | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| Brazil | | | 19/01/2021 | | | BR112014006276 | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| Canada | | | 22/05/2018 | | | CA2849558 | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| Indonesia | | | | | | | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| Turkey | | | 21/04/2015 | | | TR201403350B | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
| USA | | | 28/02/2017 | | | US9584037 | | | 20/09/2032 | | |||||
Patent
|
| |
Current generator and method for generating current pulses
|
| |
France
|
| |
04/04/2014
|
| |
FR2988933
|
| |
29/03/2032
|
|
| International (PCT) | | | | | | | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
| Australia | | | 20/10/2016 | | | AU2013241675 | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
| Canada | | | 08/09/2020 | | | CA2869170 | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
| Chile | | | 30/10/2018 | | | 56649 | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
| Peru | | | 20/05/2019 | | | PE9489 | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
| USA | | | 28/06/2016 | | | US9379636 | | | 28/03/2033 | | |||||
Patent | | | Switch and system to inject current | | | France | | | 25/01/2022 | | | FR3105446 | | | 19/12/2039 | |
Domain
|
| |
Classification
|
| |
Tonnes
|
| |
Total
Cu % |
| |
Total Soluble
Cu %(2) |
| |
Total
Cu Tonnes |
| |
Acid Soluble
Cu Tonnes |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Total
|
| | | | Indicated | | | | | | 274,000,000 | | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | 0.25 | | | | | | 2,539,000 | | | | | | 684,000 | | |
Total
|
| | | | Inferred | | | | | | 248,754,000 | | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | 0.44 | | | | | | 2,255,000 | | | | | | 1,085,000 | | |
Name
|
| |
Title
|
| |
Experience
|
|
Eric Finlayson
|
| |
President
|
| |
•
Geologist with almost 40 years of global multi-commodity experience and extensive industry contacts
•
Served as Senior Advisor, Business Development from 2013 until 2015 of HPX before being appointed to President of Ivanhoe Electric in 2020
•
Previously, spent 24 years with Rio Tinto, including 5 years as Global Head of Exploration
•
Led teams at Rio Tinto responsible for discovery of major copper, nickel, iron ore, bauxite and diamond deposits
|
|
Charles Forster
|
| |
SVP, Exploration
|
| |
•
Professional geologist with more than 45 years of diversified mineral exploration in Canada, the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa, Portugal, China, and Mongolia
•
Formerly, SVP Exploration at Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia for Ivanhoe Mines
•
Led a team of multi-national and Mongolian geologists in the discovery and delineation of the world-class Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold porphyry deposit
|
|
Mark Gibson
|
| |
COO
|
| |
•
Professional geologist with more than 32 years of wide-ranging experience as a geoscientist and manager in the natural resources sector
•
Joined HPX in 2011 as the founding CEO
•
Held previous positions at Anglo American and founded a geophysical services company focused on managing seismic surveys
|
|
Graham Boyd
|
| |
VP, U.S. Projects
|
| |
•
Geologist with over 16 years of base and precious metals experience
•
Held various senior roles at HPX and roles with Ivanhoe Mines
•
Worked with Ivanhoe Australia in 2008, where he was part of the discovery team for Merlin, the world’s highest-grade molybdenum-rhenium deposit
•
Formerly worked with Ivanhoe Mines in Mongolia in 2006
•
A member of the discovery team in 2008 at Ivanhoe Australia for Merlin, the world’s highest-grade molybdenum-rhenium deposit
•
A key contributor to delineation and resource development of the Mount Dore Cu, and Mt Elliott-SWAN Cu-Au deposits
|
|
Glen Kuntz
|
| |
Chief Technical and Innovation Officer
|
| |
•
Professional Geologist and mining executive with over 30 years of experience in exploration, project development, open pit and underground mining operations and business development across a variety of commodities and mining types/methods
•
Formerly director of exploration projects at Yamana Gold Inc. (“Yamana Gold”)
•
Formerly President and CEO of Mega Precious Metals Inc., a successful junior exploration company, which was acquired by Yamana Gold
•
Managed over 200 technical studies on various projects and mines around the world over the past 10 years
|
|
Company
|
| |
Deposit
|
| |
Effective
Date |
| |
Category
|
| |
Tonnes
|
| |
Total
Cu (%) |
| |
Ni (%)
|
| |
Au (g/t)
|
| |
Ag (g/t)
|
| |
Contained
Cu (tonnes) |
| |
Contained
Ni (tonnes) |
| |
Contained
Au (oz.) |
| |
Contained
Ag (oz.) |
| |
Geographic
Area |
| |
Resource
Category |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100% Project Basis
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ivanhoe Electric
|
| |
Santa Cruz
|
| | 12/8/2021 | | | | | Indicated | | | | 274,000,000 | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,539,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | Arizona,U.S. | | | | Copper | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | 248,754,000 | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,255,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | |
Kaizen Discovery Inc.
|
| | Pinaya | | | 4/26/2016 | | | | | Measured | | | | 8,204,000 | | | | | 0.326 | | | | | | | | | | | | 0.600 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 26,767 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 158,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | Peru | | | |
Copper
Gold |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Indicated | | | | 33,487,000 | | | | | 0.324 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.462 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 108,357 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 497,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | 40,216,000 | | | | | 0.360 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.300 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 144,715 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 388,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | |
Sama Resources Inc.
|
| | Samapleu | | | 5/22/2019 | | | | | Indicated | | | | 33,180,000 | | | | | 0.186 | | | | | | 0.238 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 61,592 | | | | | | 78,968 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | IvoryCoast | | | |
Nickel
Copper |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | 17,780,000 | | | | | 0.144 | | | | | | 0.224 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 25,552 | | | | | | 39,827 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cordoba Mineral Corp.
|
| |
San Matias
|
| | 8/3/2021 | | | | | Indicated | | | | 19,100,000 | | | | | 0.28 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.11 | | | | | | 1.15 | | | | | | 5,315 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 180,863 | | | | | | 667,926 | | | | | | Colombia | | | |
Copper
Gold Silver |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | 5,100,000 | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | 0.94 | | | | | | 9,823 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 32,557 | | | | | | 142,538 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Company
|
| |
Deposit
|
| |
Effective
Date |
| |
Category
|
| |
Tonnes
|
| |
Total
Cu (%) |
| |
Ni (%)
|
| |
Au (g/t)
|
| |
Ag (g/t)
|
| |
Contained
Cu (tonnes) |
| |
Contained
Ni (tonnes) |
| |
Contained
Au (oz.) |
| |
Contained
Ag (oz.) |
| |
Geographic
Area |
| |
Resource
Category |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cordoba Mineral Corp.
|
| |
San Matias
|
| | 10/21/2021 | | | Probable | | | | | 102,100,000 | | | | | | 0.41 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 0.260 | | | | | | 2.30 | | | | | | 418,610 | | | | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 853,472 | | | | | | 7,549,949 | | | | | | Colombia | | | |
Copper
Gold Silver |
|
Company
|
| |
Deposit
|
| |
Effective
Date |
| |
%
ownership |
| |
Category
|
| |
Attributable
Tonnes |
| |
Total
Cu (%) |
| |
Ni
(%) |
| |
Au
(g/t) |
| |
Ag
(g/t) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Cu (tonnes) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Ni (tonnes) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Au (oz.) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Ag (oz.) |
| |
Geographic
Area |
| |
Resource
Category |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ivanhoe Electric
|
| |
Santa
Cruz |
| | 12/8/2021 | | | | | 100% | | | | Indicated | | | | | 274,000,000 | | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,539,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | |
Arizona,
U.S. |
| | Copper | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | | 248,754,000 | | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,255,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | |
Kaizen Discovery Inc.
|
| | Pinaya | | | 4/26/2016 | | | | | 82.68% | | | | Measured | | | | | 6,783,067 | | | | | | 0.326 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.600 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 22,131 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 130,634 | | | | | | — | | | | Peru | | |
Copper
Gold |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Indicated | | | | | 27,687,052 | | | | | | 0.324 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.462 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 89,590 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 410,920 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | | 33,250,589 | | | | | | 0.360 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.300 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 119,650 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 320,798 | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | |
Sama Resources Inc.
|
| | Samapleu | | | 5/22/2019 | | | | | 46% | | | | Indicated | | | | | 15,262,800 | | | | | | 0.186 | | | | | | 0.238 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 28,332 | | | | | | 36,325 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | |
Ivory Coast
|
| |
Nickel
Copper |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | | 8,178,800 | | | | | | 0.144 | | | | | | 0.224 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 11,754 | | | | | | 18,320 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | |
Cordoba Mineral Corp.
|
| |
San
Matias |
| | 8/3/2021 | | | | | 63.27% | | | | Indicated | | | | | 12,084,570 | | | | | | 0.280 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.110 | | | | | | 1.15 | | | | | | 3,363 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 114,432 | | | | | | 422,597 | | | | Colombia | | |
Copper
Gold Silver |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Inferred | | | | | 3,226,770 | | | | | | 0.210 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | 0.94 | | | | | | 6,215 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 20,599 | | | | | | 90,184 | | | | | | | | |
Company
|
| |
Deposit
|
| |
Effective
Date |
| |
%
ownership |
| |
Category
|
| |
Tonnes
|
| |
Total
Cu (%) |
| |
Ni
(%) |
| |
Au
(g/t) |
| |
Ag
(g/t) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Cu (tonnes) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Ni (tonnes) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Au (oz.) |
| |
Attributable
Contained Ag (oz.) |
| |
Geographic
Area |
| |
Resource
Category |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cordoba Mineral Corp.
|
| |
San
Matias |
| | 10/21/2021 | | |
63.27%
|
| | | | Probable | | | | | | 64,598,670 | | | | | | 0.41 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.260 | | | | | | 2.30 | | | | | | 264,855 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 539,992 | | | | | | 4,776,853 | | | | Colombia | | |
Copper
Gold Silver |
|
|
Project Name
|
| |
Location and
Project Size |
| |
Stage of
Development |
| |
IVNE Interest and Nature of Interest
|
| |
Title Holders /
Operator |
| |
Minerals
|
| |
Nature of
Mineral Title |
| |
Mineral
Resources/ Reserves |
| |
Production –
Last 3 Fiscal Years |
|
|
Santa Cruz
|
| |
Arizona, USA
77.59 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
0% current ownership interest; Option to acquire 100% of the mineral title
|
| |
DRH Energy Inc. (mineral title) Legends Property, LLC (surface rights)
|
| |
Copper
|
| |
Patented and unpatented claims; Arizona State exploration permits
|
| |
Mineral resource
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
|
Tintic
|
| |
Utah, USA
65 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
84.3% current ownership interest by acreage; Options and lease rights cover balance aggregating to 100% of the mineral title by acreage
|
| |
Tintic Copper & Gold, Inc.
|
| |
Copper
Gold |
| |
Patented and unpatented claims; SITLA and BLM claims
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
|
Hog Heaven
|
| |
Montana, USA
24.2 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
3% equity ownership of Brixton Metals Corporation
Earn-in with Brixton for up to a 75% project interest
|
| |
Brixton USA Corp. (joint venture company), a subsidiary of Brixton (“Brixton JVC”)
|
| |
Copper
Silver Gold |
| |
Fee simple mineral rights, owned and leased
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
|
Ivory Coast Project
|
| |
Ivory Coast
1125 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
23% equity ownership of Sama and 30% interest in joint venture with option up to 60% of Sama’s interests in the Ivory Coast Project
|
| |
Société pour le Développement Minier de la Côte d’Ivoire
|
| |
Nickel
Copper Cobalt PGE |
| |
Exploration license
|
| |
Mineral Resource
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
| |
Drill Hole
|
| | |
Location
|
| | |
Bedrock
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
Total
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
From (m)
|
| | |
To (m)
|
| | |
Interval
Length (m) |
| | |
Total
Copper (%) |
| | |
Acid-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Cyanide-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Total
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
SCC-001
|
| | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | | | 514.74 | | | | | | | 1,275.0 | | | | | |
|
583.70
Including 623.10 681.23 732.52 776.52 |
| | | | |
|
1027.00
673.23 711.32 758.52 1009.00 |
| | | | |
|
443.30
50.13 30.09 26.00 232.48 |
| | | | |
|
1.37
2.55 2.75 2.10 0.88 |
| | | | |
|
0.71
2.19 2.22 1.21 0.04 |
| | | | |
|
0.16
0.02 0.31 0.66 0.12 |
| | | | |
|
0.87
2.21 2.53 1.87 0.16 |
| | |
| | SCC-002 | | | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | |
|
441.96
|
| | | | |
|
965.3
|
| | | | | |
587.00 639.00 721.00 Including 723.00 831.00 |
| | | | | |
633.00 702.00 919.00 748.00 901.00 |
| | | | | |
46.00 63.00 198.00 25.00 70.00 |
| | | | | |
1.15 1.65 1.05 3.36 0.67 |
| | | | | |
0.99 1.48 0.04 0.23 0.01 |
| | | | | |
0.07 0.29 0.41 2.61 0.07 |
| | | | | |
1.07 1.76 0.45 2.84 0.08 |
| | |
| | SCC-003 | | | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | |
|
279.45
|
| | | | |
|
778.5
|
| | | | | |
508.00 Including 513.00 538.00 593.00 |
| | | | | |
529.00 523.00 566.00 629.00 |
| | | | | |
21.00 10.00 28.00 36.00 |
| | | | | |
2.15 3.42 0.76 0.63 |
| | | | | |
1.96 3.15 0.65 0.04 |
| | | | | |
0.09 0.17 0.03 0.48 |
| | | | | |
2.05 3.32 0.68 0.52 |
| | |
| |
Drill Hole
|
| | |
Location
|
| | |
Bedrock
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
Total
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
From (m)
|
| | |
To (m)
|
| | |
Interval
Length (m) |
| | |
Total
Copper (%) |
| | |
Acid-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Cyanide-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Total
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
SCC-004
|
| | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | | | 316.38 | | | | | | | 926.9 | | | | | |
|
597.00
Including 597.00 666.00 Including 666.00 824.00 902.00 |
| | | | |
|
633.00
609.00 849.00 680.00 831.62 908.00 |
| | | | |
|
36.00
12.00 183.00 14.00 7.62 6.00 |
| | | | |
|
1.46
2.78 0.67 1.33 0.95 0.58 |
| | | | |
|
1.28
2.48 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.07 |
| | | | |
|
0.14
0.24 0.38 1.20 0.12 0.45 |
| | | | |
|
1.42
2.72 0.56 1.29 0.15 0.52 |
| | |
| | SCC-005 | | | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | |
|
550.01
|
| | | | |
|
793.7
|
| | | | | |
613.17 636.00 Including 659.00 |
| | | | | |
623.00 693.00 683.14 |
| | | | | |
9.83 57.00 24.14 |
| | | | | |
1.88 3.52 7.02 |
| | | | | |
1.42 1.88 3.33 |
| | | | | |
0.03 0.89 2.07 |
| | | | | |
1.46 2.77 5.40 |
| | |
| |
SCC-007
|
| | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | | | 773.33 | | | | | | | 1,344.2 | | | | | |
|
813.59
Including 814.37 880.00 Including 886.00 968.00 Including 982.00 996.00 1088.00 1151.00 1214.00 |
| | | | |
|
871.00
830.00 905.00 896.00 1304.00 1132.00 1040.00 1123.00 1164.00 1222.00 |
| | | | |
|
57.41
15.63 25.00 10.00 336.00 150.00 44.00 35.00 13.00 8.00 |
| | | | |
|
0.92
1.84 2.44 4.08 1.27 2.08 2.38 2.28 1.04 0.99 |
| | | | |
|
0.84
1.73 1.64 2.20 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.13 0.01 0.01 |
| | | | |
|
0.01
0.01 0.64 1.59 0.84 1.83 2.12 2.04 0.05 0.06 |
| | | | |
|
0.85
1.74 2.28 3.79 0.96 2.00 2.34 2.18 0.06 0.07 |
| | |
| | SCC-008 | | | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | |
|
927.01
|
| | | | |
|
1,220.3
|
| | | | | |
754.00 804.00 901.00 Including 922.00 1006.00 1036.00 |
| | | | | |
763.00 816.00 1057.00 957.00 1027.00 1044.00 |
| | | | | |
9.00 12.00 156.00 35.00 21.00 8.00 |
| | | | | |
1.95 1.19 0.74 1.12 0.58 0.83 |
| | | | | |
1.82 1.01 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 |
| | | | | |
0.02 0.02 0.13 0.32 0.09 0.10 |
| | | | | |
1.83 1.03 0.21 0.35 0.09 0.11 |
| | |
| |
SCC-011
|
| | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | | | | 719.94 | | | | | | | 1,099.4 | | | | | |
|
749.15
Including 749.15 766.00 767.00 859.00 Including 860.00 |
| | | | |
|
811.06
760.00 809.70 777.00 949.00 890.00 |
| | | | |
|
61.91
10.85 43.70 10.00 90.00 30.00 |
| | | | |
|
1.08
1.83 1.02 1.52 0.83 1.62 |
| | | | |
|
1.04
1.77 0.99 1.49 0.44 0.82 |
| | | | |
|
0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.64 |
| | | | |
|
1.05
1.78 0.99 1.50 0.74 1.45 |
| | |
| |
Drill Hole
|
| | |
Location
|
| | |
Bedrock
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
Total
Depth of Hole (m) |
| | |
From (m)
|
| | |
To (m)
|
| | |
Interval
Length (m) |
| | |
Total
Copper (%) |
| | |
Acid-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Cyanide-
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |
Total
Soluble Copper (%) |
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
SCC-017
|
| | |
Exploration
|
| | | |
|
633.57
|
| | | | |
|
1,139.3
|
| | | | |
|
756.50
Including 756.50 Including 862.00 963.00 1001.83 |
| | | | |
|
1075.00
1040.00 905.00 977.99 1014.00 |
| | | | |
|
318.50
283.50 43.00 14.99 12.17 |
| | | | |
|
0.88
0.92 1.26 1.19 1.01 |
| | | | |
|
0.02
0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 |
| | | | |
|
0.21
0.23 0.26 0.06 0.08 |
| | | | |
|
0.22
0.25 0.28 0.07 0.09 |
| | |
| |
SCC-019
|
| | |
Exploration
|
| | | | | 637.34 | | | | | | | 1,123.3 | | | | | |
|
772.97
Including 772.97 931.00 1018.00 Including 1021.00 |
| | | | |
|
873.00
846.00 942.00 1059.90 1028.00 |
| | | | |
|
100.03
73.03 11.00 41.90 7.00 |
| | | | |
|
1.74
2.21 0.97 0.82 1.44 |
| | | | |
|
0.09
0.13 0.01 0.01 0.01 |
| | | | |
|
0.82
1.09 0.12 0.05 0.09 |
| | | | |
|
0.91
1.22 0.13 0.06 0.10 |
| | |
Domain
|
| |
Resource
Category |
| |
Kilotonnes kt
|
| |
Total
Cu % |
| |
Total
Soluble Cu % |
| |
Acid
Soluble Cu % |
| |
Cyanide
Soluble Cu% |
| |
Total Cu kt
|
| |
Total
Soluble Cu kt |
| |
Acid
Soluble Cu kt |
| |
Cyanide
Soluble Cu kt |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Exotic
|
| | Indicated | | | | | 6,989 | | | | | | 1.05 | | | | | | 0.80 | | | | | | 0.73 | | | | | | 0.07 | | | | | | 73 | | | | | | 56 | | | | | | 51 | | | | | | 5 | | |
| | | Inferred | | | | | 11,680 | | | | | | 1.28 | | | | | | 1.00 | | | | | | 0.98 | | | | | | 0.02 | | | | | | 149 | | | | | | 118 | | | | | | 115 | | | | | | 3 | | |
Oxide
|
| | Indicated | | | | | 52,990 | | | | | | 1.34 | | | | | | 1.27 | | | | | | 0.98 | | | | | | 0.29 | | | | | | 708 | | | | | | 669 | | | | | | 518 | | | | | | 151 | | |
| | | Inferred | | | | | 126,138 | | | | | | 1.06 | | | | | | 1.00 | | | | | | 0.71 | | | | | | 0.29 | | | | | | 1,336 | | | | | | 1,253 | | | | | | 892 | | | | | | 361 | | |
Chalcocite Enriched
|
| | Indicated | | | | | 29,145 | | | | | | 1.25 | | | | | | 1.13 | | | | | | 0.40 | | | | | | 0.73 | | | | | | 364 | | | | | | 328 | | | | | | 115 | | | | | | 213 | | |
| | | Inferred | | | | | 14,838 | | | | | | 1.36 | | | | | | 1.28 | | | | | | 0.52 | | | | | | 0.76 | | | | | | 202 | | | | | | 191 | | | | | | 78 | | | | | | 113 | | |
Primary
|
| | Indicated | | | | | 184,877 | | | | | | 0.75 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | 1,394 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | |
| | | Inferred | | | | | 96,098 | | | | | | 0.59 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | 568 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | |
TOTAL | | | Indicated | | | | | 274,000 | | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | 0.38 | | | | | | 0.25 | | | | | | 0.13 | | | | | | 2,539 | | | | | | 1,053 | | | | | | 684 | | | | | | 369 | | |
| | | Inferred | | | | | 248,754 | | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | 0.63 | | | | | | 0.44 | | | | | | 0.19 | | | | | | 2,255 | | | | | | 1,563 | | | | | | 1,085 | | | | | | 478 | | |
Deposit
|
| |
Category
|
| |
Cu Cut-Off
Grade (%) |
| |
Tonnes
(Mt) |
| |
Total Cu
(%) |
| |
Total Soluble
Cu (%)(1) |
| |
Total
Contained Cu (Mt) |
| |
Total
Contained Acid Soluble Cu (Mt) |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Santa Cruz
|
| | Indicated | | | | | 2.0% | | | | | | 22,872,137 | | | | | | 2.58 | | | | | | 1.37 | | | | | | 590,080 | | | | | | 312,528 | | |
| | | | | | | | 1.0% | | | | | | 83,359,021 | | | | | | 1.69 | | | | | | 0.68 | | | | | | 1,407,930 | | | | | | 568,069 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.8% | | | | | | 117,239,321 | | | | | | 1.46 | | | | | | 0.52 | | | | | | 1,709,776 | | | | | | 610,282 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.5% | | | | | | 219,131,684 | | | | | | 1.07 | | | | | | 0.30 | | | | | | 2,353,684 | | | | | | 668,114 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.39% | | | | | | 274,000,000 | | | | | | 0.93 | | | | | | 0.25 | | | | | | 2,539,000 | | | | | | 684,000 | | |
Santa Cruz
|
| | Inferred | | | | | 2.0% | | | | | | 28,098,868 | | | | | | 2.66 | | | | | | 1.72 | | | | | | 748,727 | | | | | | 483,315 | | |
| | | | | | | | 1.0% | | | | | | 74,106,551 | | | | | | 1.87 | | | | | | 1.08 | | | | | | 1,383,711 | | | | | | 801,363 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.8% | | | | | | 98,139,965 | | | | | | 1.63 | | | | | | 0.90 | | | | | | 1,598,724 | | | | | | 879,141 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.5% | | | | | | 174,941,611 | | | | | | 1.19 | | | | | | 0.60 | | | | | | 2,080,315 | | | | | | 1,050,293 | | |
| | | | | | | | 0.39% | | | | | | 248,754,000 | | | | | | 0.91 | | | | | | 0.44 | | | | | | 2,255,000 | | | | | | 1,085,000 | | |
Category
|
| |
Resources
(Mt) |
| |
NiEq
(%) |
| |
Ni
(%) |
| |||||||||
Measured
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Indicated
|
| | | | 33.18 | | | | | | 0.269 | | | | | | 0.238 | | |
Measured and Indicated
|
| | | | 33.18 | | | | | | 0.269 | | | | | | 0.238 | | |
Inferred
|
| | | | 17.78 | | | | | | 0.248 | | | | | | 0.224 | | |
Project Name
|
| |
Location and
Project Size |
| |
Stage of
Development |
| |
IVNE Interest
and Nature of Interest |
| |
Title Holders /
Operator |
| |
Primary
Minerals |
| |
Nature of
Mineral Title |
| |
Mineral
Resources/ Reserves |
| |
Aggregate
Annual Production – Last 3 Fiscal Years |
|
Bitter Creek
|
| |
Arizona, USA
35.2 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
100% Ownership
|
| |
Bitter Creek Exploration, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary
|
| |
Copper
Gold |
| |
Lode mining claims
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Carolina
|
| |
North Carolina, USA
1.75 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
0% current ownership with right to earn up to 85%
|
| |
Carolina Mining Corp.
|
| |
Gold
Copper |
| |
Fee Simple
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Desert Mountain
|
| |
Utah, USA
13.88 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
Little Sahara Exploration (“LSE”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
|
| |
LSE
|
| |
Copper
Gold |
| |
Unpatented mineral claims
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Lincoln
|
| |
Utah, USA
50.14 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
0% current ownership interest;
Option to acquire 100% of the mineral title
|
| |
Lincoln Cave Exploration, Inc. (“LCE”), a wholly-owned subsidiary
|
| |
Copper
Lead Zinc Silver Gold |
| |
Patented mineral claims, unpatented mineral claims and Utah State leases
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Unity
|
| |
Oregon, USA
38.29 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
0% current ownership interest;
Option to acquire 100% of the mineral title
|
| |
CMC, a wholly-owned subsidiary
|
| |
Copper
|
| |
Unpatented mineral claims
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Yangayu
|
| |
Papua New Guinea
1,100 km2
|
| |
Exploration
|
| |
0% current ownership interest;
Option to acquire 100% of the mineral title
|
| |
Goldsearch International
|
| |
Copper
Gold |
| |
Exploration license
|
| |
n/a
|
| |
Not in production
|
|
Company
|
| |
Location of
Incorporation |
| |
Equity
Ownership % Non-Diluted(1) |
| |
Equity
Ownership % Partially-Diluted(1) |
| |
Principal Mineral
Projects |
|
Brixton Minerals Corporation
|
| |
British Columbia, Canada
|
| |
3.30%
|
| |
6.39% on exercise of warrants
|
| |
Hog Heaven Project, Montana, USA
|
|
Cordoba Minerals Corp.
|
| |
British Columbia,
Canada |
| |
63.27%
|
| |
64.53% on exercise of warrants
|
| |
San Matias Project, Colombia
Perseverance Project, Arizona |
|
Kaizen Discovery Inc.
|
| |
British Columbia, Canada
|
| |
82.68%
|
| |
83.59% on exercise of warrants
|
| |
Pinaya Project, Peru
|
|
Sama Resources Inc.
|
| |
Canada
|
| |
22.78%
|
| |
22.78%
|
| |
Ivory Coast Project, Ivory Coast
|
|
Fjordland Exploration Inc.
|
| |
British Columbia, Canada
|
| |
17.31%
|
| |
17.31%
|
| |
South Voisey’s Bay Project, Canada
|
|
Project Name
|
| |
Location
|
| |
Stage of
Development |
| |
IVNE
Interest and Nature of Interest |
| |
Title
Holders / Operator |
| |
Minerals
|
| |
Nature of
Mineral Title |
| |
Mineral
Resources/ Reserves |
| |
Aggregate
Annual Production – Last 3 Fiscal Years |
|
San Matias
|
| | Colombia | | | Development | | | Shareholder in Cordoba | | | Cordoba | | |
Copper
Gold Silver |
| |
Construction and Assembly; Exploration licenses
|
| |
Mineral Resource & Mineral Reserve
|
| | Not in production | |
Perseverance
|
| | Arizona, USA | | | Exploration | | |
Shareholder in Cordoba
Cordoba owns 51% of Perseverance and has an option to earn an additional 29%
|
| |
MMDEX LLC a joint venture company between Cordoba and Bell Copper Corporation
|
| | Copper | | | Fee simple, Arizona State leases | | | No | | | Not in production | |
Pinaya
|
| | Peru | | | Exploration | | | Shareholder in Kaizen | | | Canper Exploraciones S.A.C. | | |
Copper
Gold |
| | Concession | | | Mineral Resource | | | Not in production | |
Coppermine
|
| | Nunavut, Canada | | | Exploration | | | Shareholder in Kaizen | | | Kaizen | | |
Copper
Silver |
| | Mineral claims | | | No | | | Not in production | |
Aspen Grove
|
| | British Columbia, Canada | | | Exploration | | | Shareholder in Kaizen | | | KZD Aspen Grove Holding Ltd | | |
Copper
Gold |
| | Mineral claims | | | No | | | Not in production | |
South Voisey’s Bay
|
| |
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
|
| | Exploration | | |
Shareholder in Fjordland
Exploration and option to acquire a 65% interest
|
| | Commander Resources Ltd. | | | Nickel | | | Mineral claims | | | No | | | Not in production | |
Deposit
|
| |
Tonnage
(Mt) |
| |
NSR
($) Marginal Cut-off |
| |
Cu Equiv.
Marginal Cut-Off (%) |
| |
Cu
Equiv. Grade (%) |
| |
Cu
Grade (%) |
| |
Au
Grade (g/t) |
| |
Ag
Grade (g/t) |
| |
Contained
Cu (tonnes) |
| |
Contained
Cu (Mlb) |
| |
Contained
Au (oz) |
| |
Contained
Ag (oz) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Indicated Resources
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alacran
|
| | | | 2.8 | | | | | | 1.78/8.85 | | | | | | 0.03/0.17 | | | | | | 0.17 | | | | | | 0.19 | | | | | | 0.11 | | | | | | 1.15 | | | | | | 5,315 | | | | | | 11.7 | | | | | | 10,263 | | | | | | 105,126 | | |
Montiel East
|
| | | | 4.3 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.70 | | | | | | 0.46 | | | | | | 0.35 | | | | | | 1.53 | | | | | | 19,800 | | | | | | 43.7 | | | | | | 48,800 | | | | | | 211,200 | | |
Montiel West
|
| | | | 4.6 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.52 | | | | | | 0.24 | | | | | | 0.49 | | | | | | 1.32 | | | | | | 11,200 | | | | | | 24.8 | | | | | | 72,600 | | | | | | 195,800 | | |
Costa Azul
|
| | | | 7.4 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.40 | | | | | | 0.24 | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | 0.65 | | | | | | 20,300 | | | | | | 44.8 | | | | | | 49,200 | | | | | | 155,800 | | |
Total Indicated
|
| | | | 19.1 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | 0.28 | | | | | | 0.11 | | | | | | 1.15 | | | | | | 5,315 | | | | | | 125.0 | | | | | | 180,863 | | | | | | 667,926 | | |
Inferred Resources | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Alacran
|
| | | | 2.2 | | | | | | 1.78/8.85 | | | | | | 0.03/0.17 | | | | | | 0.12 | | | | | | 0.20 | | | | | | 0.17 | | | | | | 0.86 | | | | | | 5,228 | | | | | | 11.5 | | | | | | 14,531 | | | | | | 72,308 | | |
Montiel East
|
| | | | 1.8 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.34 | | | | | | 0.25 | | | | | | 0.15 | | | | | | 0.88 | | | | | | 4,400 | | | | | | 9.6 | | | | | | 8,500 | | | | | | 50,300 | | |
Montiel West
|
| | | | 0.6 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.39 | | | | | | 0.07 | | | | | | 0.54 | | | | | | 0.96 | | | | | | 400 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | | | | 11,100 | | | | | | 19,000 | | |
Costa Azul
|
| | | | 0.1 | | | | | | 13.75 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 0.39 | | | | | | 0.29 | | | | | | 0.16 | | | | | | 0.60 | | | | | | 400 | | | | | | 0.8 | | | | | | 600 | | | | | | 2,400 | | |
Total Inferred
|
| | | | 5.1 | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | n/a | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | 0.94 | | | | | | 9,823 | | | | | | 21.6 | | | | | | 32,557 | | | | | | 142,538 | | |
Category
|
| | | | |
NSR Value
Marginal Cut-off Grade |
| |
Tonnage
(thousands) |
| |
Diluted Cu
Grade (%) |
| |
Diluted Au
Grade (g/t) |
| |
Diluted Ag
Grade (g/t) |
| ||||||||||||
Probable Mineral Reserve
|
| |
Saprolite
|
| |
1.78 $/t
|
| | | | 10,135 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 0.21 | | | | | | — | | |
Probable Mineral Reserve
|
| |
Transition
|
| |
8.85 $/t
|
| | | | 2,011 | | | | | | 0.62 | | | | | | 0.22 | | | | | | 3.11 | | |
Probable Mineral Reserve
|
| |
Fresh
|
| |
8.85 $/t
|
| | | | 89,954 | | | | | | 0.45 | | | | | | 0.27 | | | | | | 2.54 | | |
Probable Mineral Reserve
|
| |
Fresh +
Transition |
| |
8.85 $/t
|
| | | | 91,165 | | | | | | 0.45 | | | | | | 0.27 | | | | | | 2.56 | | |
Probable Mineral Reserve
|
| |
Overall Total
|
| |
—
|
| | | | 102,100 | | | | | | 0.41 | | | | | | 0.26 | | | | | | 2.30 | | |
Class
|
| |
Tonnes
‘000’s |
| |
Average Grades
|
| |
Contained Metal
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
% Cu
|
| |
g/t Au
|
| |
lbs Cu ‘000’s
|
| |
oz Au ‘000’s
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Measured
|
| | | | 8,204 | | | | | | 0.326 | | | | | | 0.600 | | | | | | 59,011 | | | | | | 158 | | |
Indicated
|
| | | | 33,487 | | | | | | 0.324 | | | | | | 0.462 | | | | | | 238,886 | | | | | | 497 | | |
Inferred
|
| | | | 40,216 | | | | | | 0.360 | | | | | | 0.300 | | | | | | 319,041 | | | | | | 388 | | |
Mineral Project
|
| |
Commitment
|
| |
2022
Total |
| |
2023
Total |
| |
2024
Total |
| |
2025
Total |
| ||||||||||||
Santa Cruz (CAR)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | 25,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Santa Cruz (DRHE)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 6,250 | | | | | | 6,250 | | | | | | 10,000 | | | | | | — | | |
Santa Cruz (Legends)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | 600 | | | | | | 800 | | | | | | 920 | | | | | | — | | |
Santa Cruz (Other)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | 15,915 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Santa Cruz (Other)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 300 | | | | | | 300 | | | | | | 300 | | | | | | 550 | | |
Santa Cruz (Total)
|
| | | | | | | 48,065 | | | | | | 7,350 | | | | | | 11,220 | | | | | | 550 | | |
Tintic (Utah)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 4,275 | | | | | | 5,288 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Hog Heaven (Montana)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,500 | | | | | | 500 | | | | | | 500 | | |
Ivory Coast
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
South Voisey’s Bay
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,416 | | | | | | — | | |
Crystal Haven
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 350 | | | | | | 7,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 35,000 | | |
Unity
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 250 | | | | | | 2,000 | | | | | | 2,250 | | | | | | — | | |
Cave & Lincoln
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 100 | | | | | | 150 | | | | | | 200 | | | | | | 250 | | |
Carolina Mining
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 1,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,000 | | |
Total
|
| | | | | | | 54,040 | | | | | | 25,288 | | | | | | 18,586 | | | | | | 41,300 | | |
Mineral Project
|
| |
Commitment
|
| |
2026
Total |
| |
2027
Total |
| |
2030
Total |
| |
2032
Total |
| |
2022 – 2032
Total |
| |||||||||||||||
Santa Cruz (CAR)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 25,000 | | |
Santa Cruz (DRHE)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 22,500 | | |
Santa Cruz (Legend)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,320 | | |
Santa Cruz (Other)
|
| | Non-discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 15,915 | | |
Santa Cruz (Other)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,450 | | |
Santa Cruz (Total)
|
| | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 67,185 | | |
Tintic (Utah)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9,563 | | |
Hog Heaven (Montana)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 1,000 | | | | | | 13,000 | | | | | | 10,000 | | | | | | 15,000 | | | | | | 43,500 | | |
Ivory Coast
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 7,762 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,762 | | |
South Voisey’s Bay (SVB)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,416 | | |
Crystal Haven
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 42,350 | | |
Unity (Oregon)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,500 | | |
Cave & Lincoln (Utah)
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | 750 | | | | | | 1,500 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,950 | | |
Carolina Mining
|
| | Discretionary | | | | | — | | | | | | 20,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 26,000 | | |
Total
|
| | | | | | | 9,512 | | | | | | 34,500 | | | | | | 10,000 | | | | | | 15,000 | | | | | | 208,226 | | |
|
Major Permits or Approvals
|
| |
Issuing Agency
|
|
| Exploration Permit | | |
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
|
|
| Large Mine Operation Approval | | |
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
|
|
| Water Appropriations | | | Utah Division of Water Rights | |
| Air Quality Permit | | | Utah Division of Air Quality | |
| General Multi-Sector Industrial Storm Water Permit | | | Utah Division of Water Quality | |
| 3809 Plan of Operation Approval | | | US Bureau of Land Management | |
| Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Waters Concurrence | | | US Army Corps of Engineers | |
| County Conditional Use Permit and Other Permits | | | Juab County and Utah County | |
|
Major Permits or Approvals
|
| |
Issuing Agency
|
|
|
Underground Injection Control Permit
|
| |
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
|
|
|
Dust Control and Air Quality Permits
|
| |
Pinal County Air Quality Control District
|
|
|
Aquifer Protection Permit
|
| |
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
|
|
|
AZPDES Industrial Stormwater Mining Multi-Sector General Permit
|
| |
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
|
|
|
Reclamation Plan Approval
|
| |
Arizona State Mine Inspector
|
|
|
Water Appropriation Permits
|
| |
Arizona Department of Water Resources
|
|
Name
|
| |
Age
|
| |
Position
|
|
Robert Friedland | | |
71
|
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors | |
Eric Finlayson | | |
61
|
| | President | |
Catherine Barone | | |
46
|
| | Interim Chief Financial Officer | |
Charles Forster | | |
74
|
| | Senior Vice President of Exploration | |
Mark Gibson | | |
53
|
| | Chief Operating Officer | |
Graham Boyd | | |
37
|
| | Vice President, U.S. Projects | |
Glen Kuntz | | |
54
|
| | Chief Technical and Innovation Officer | |
Evan Young | | |
36
|
| | Vice President, Corporate Development | |
Russell Ball | | |
54
|
| | Director Nominee | |
Victoire de Margerie | | |
59
|
| | Director Nominee | |
Francis Fannon | | |
48
|
| | Director | |
Hirofumi Katase | | |
63
|
| | Director | |
Oskar Lewnowski | | |
57
|
| | Director Nominee | |
Priya Patil | | |
59
|
| | Director Nominee | |
Name and
Principal Position |
| |
Year
|
| |
Salary
($) |
| |
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan ($) |
| |
Option
Awards ($)(2) |
| |
Bonus
|
| |
All Other
Compensation ($) |
| |
Total ($)
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Friedland
|
| | | | 2021 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,046,875 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,046,875 | | |
Chief Executive Officer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Eric Finlayson
|
| | | | 2021 | | | | | $ | 215,716 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,006,875 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 52,094(3) | | | | | $ | 1,274,685 | | |
President | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Graham Boyd
|
| | | | 2021 | | | | | $ | 122,324 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 362,500 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 17,643(4) | | | | | $ | 502,467 | | |
Vice President, U.S. Projects | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
NEO
|
| |
Company
Option Shares |
| |
VRB Option
Shares |
| ||||||
Robert Friedland
|
| | | | 916,666 | | | | | | 5,000,000 | | |
Eric Finlayson
|
| | | | 916,666 | | | | | | 1,000,000 | | |
Graham Boyd
|
| | | | 333,333 | | | | | | | | |
NEO
|
| |
Number of Company
Shares Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable |
| |
Number of Company
Shares Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable |
| |
Option
Exercise Price ($) |
| |
Option
Expiration Date |
|
Robert Friedland
|
| |
229,166
|
| |
687,500
|
| |
2.49
|
| |
June 30, 2025
|
|
Eric Finlayson
|
| |
229,166
|
| |
687,500
|
| |
2.49
|
| |
June 30, 2025
|
|
Graham Boyd
|
| |
83,333
|
| |
250,000
|
| |
2.49
|
| |
June 30, 2025
|
|
NEO
|
| |
Number of VRB Shares
Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable |
| |
Number of VRB Shares
Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable |
| |
Option
Exercise Price ($) |
| |
Option
Expiration Date |
|
Robert Friedland
|
| |
1,000,000
|
| |
4,000,000
|
| |
0.165
|
| |
March 30, 2026
|
|
Eric Finlayson
|
| |
200,000
|
| |
800,000
|
| |
0.165
|
| |
March 30, 2026
|
|
Graham Boyd | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Name
|
| |
Options
Issued (#) |
| |
Option
Awards($) |
| |
Total($)
|
| |||||||||
Laurent Jean-Louis Frescaline
|
| | | | 83,333 | | | | | | 90,625 | | | | | | 90,625 | | |
Kenneth Lau
|
| | | | 83,333 | | | | | | 90,625 | | | | | | 90,625 | | |
Ian Plimer
|
| | | | 83,333 | | | | | | 90,625 | | | | | | 90,625 | | |
Patrick On Yip Tsang
|
| | | | 83,333 | | | | | | 90,625 | | | | | | 90,625 | | |
Name
|
| |
Aggregate
Principal Amount of Series 2 Convertible Notes |
| |||
Orion Mine Finance Fund III LP
|
| | | $ | 6,200,000 | | |
Name
|
| |
Number of
Shares of Common Stock Purchased |
| |
Aggregate
Principal Amount of Series 1 Convertible Notes |
| |
Aggregate
Purchase Price |
| |||||||||
THISBE & CO fbo Fidelity NorthStar Fund
|
| | | | 39,500 | | | | | $ | 491,775 | | | | | $ | 590,130 | | |
THISBE & CO fbo Fidelity True North Fund
|
| | | | 116,500 | | | | | $ | 1,450,425 | | | | | $ | 1,740,510 | | |
Name
|
| |
Number of
Shares of Common Stock Purchased |
| |
Aggregate
Principal Amount of Series 1 Convertible Notes |
| |
Aggregate
Purchase Price |
| |||||||||
Robert Friedland
|
| | | | 502,000 | | | | | $ | 6,249,900 | | | | | $ | 7,499,880 | | |
Orion Mine Finance Fund III LP
|
| | | | 803,166 | | | | | $ | 9,999,425 | | | | | $ | 11,999,490 | | |
Eric Finlayson
|
| | | | 10,000 | | | | | $ | 124,500 | | | | | $ | 149,400 | | |
| | |
Shares
Beneficially Owned |
| |
Percentage of Shares
BeneficiallyOwned |
| ||||||||||||
Name of Beneficial Owner
|
| |
Before This
Offering |
| |
After This
Offering |
| ||||||||||||
Executive Officers and Directors: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Robert Friedland(1)(10)(16)
|
| | | | 9,367,094 | | | | | | 11.9% | | | | | | 10.1% | | |
Eric Finlayson(2)
|
| | | | 492,635 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Graham Boyd(3)
|
| | | | 166,666 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Catherine Barone(4)
|
| | | | 125,000 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Francis Fannon
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Laurent Jean-Louis Frescaline(5)
|
| | | | 2,948,724 | | | | | | 3.8% | | | | | | 3.2% | | |
Hirofumi Katase(6)
|
| | | | 44,022 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Kenneth Lau(7)
|
| | | | 41,666 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Ian Plimer(8)
|
| | | | 41,666 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Patrick On Yip Tsang(9)
|
| | | | 41,666 | | | | | | * | | | | | | * | | |
Russell Ball, Director Nominee
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Victoire de Margerie, Director Nominee
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Oskar Lewnowski, Director Nominee(13)(17)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Priya Patil, Director Nominee
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
All executive officers, directors and director nominees as a group (14 people)
|
| | | | 13,269,139 | | | | | | 17.0% | | | | | | 14.3% | | |
Greater than 5% Stockholders: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I-Pulse, Inc.(10)(16)(17)
|
| | | | 13,500,101 | | | | | | 17.3% | | | | | | 14.6% | | |
Century Vision Holdings Limited(11)
|
| | | | 13,673,178 | | | | | | 17.5% | | | | | | 14.8% | | |
Fidelity Contrafund entities(12)
|
| | | | 6,330,606 | | | | | | 8.1% | | | | | | 6.8% | | |
Orion Mine Finance Fund III LP(13)(17)
|
| | | | 6,462,866 | | | | | | 8.3% | | | | | | 7.0% | | |
BlackRock Inc. entities(14)
|
| | | | 5,290,646 | | | | | | 6.8% | | | | | | 5.7% | | |
BHP Group Limited entities(15)
|
| | | | 5,131,999 | | | | | | 6.6% | | | | | | 5.5% | | |
(in US$)
|
| |
Year Ended
December 31, 2021 |
| |
Year Ended
December 31, 2020 |
| |
Year Ended
December 31, 2019 |
| |||||||||
Audit fees(1)
|
| | | $ | 761,800 | | | | | $ | 409,900 | | | | | $ | 295,100 | | |
Audit related fees(2)
|
| | | | 278,200 | | | | | | 441,400 | | | | | | 87,800 | | |
Tax fees(3)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
All other fees(4)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total fees
|
| | | $ | 1,040,000 | | | | | $ | 851,300 | | | | | $ | 382,900 | | |
Number of Shares
|
| |
Date
|
|
None | | | On the date of this prospectus | |
5,047,285 | | | After 90 days from the date of this prospectus | |
73,173,189 | | | After 180 days from the date of this prospectus (subject, in some cases, to volume limitations) | |
Underwriters
|
| |
Number of
shares |
| |||
BMO Capital Markets Corp.
|
| | | | | | |
Jefferies LLC
|
| | | | | | |
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
|
| | | | | | |
Raymond James & Associates, Inc.
|
| | | | | | |
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
|
| | | | | | |
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.
|
| | | | | | |
Total
|
| | | | 14,388,000 | | |
| | |
No exercise
|
| |
Full exercise
|
| ||||||
Per share
|
| | | $ | | | | | $ | | | ||
Total
|
| | | $ | | | | | $ | | | |
| | | | | F-2 | | | |
| | | | | F-3 | | | |
| | | | | F-4 | | | |
| | | | | F-5 | | | |
| | | | | F-6 | | | |
| | | | | F-7 | | | |
| | | | | F-33 | | | |
| | | | | F-34 | | | |
| | | | | F-35 | | | |
| | | | | F-36 | | | |
| | | | | F-37 | | |
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| ||||||
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
$
|
49,850
|
| | | | $ | 9,341 | | |
Accounts receivable
|
| | |
|
1,385
|
| | | | | 2,841 | | |
Inventory
|
| | |
|
5,878
|
| | | | | 3,538 | | |
Prepaid expenses and deposits
|
| | |
|
1,152
|
| | | | | 1,106 | | |
| | | |
|
58,265
|
| | | | | 16,826 | | |
Non-current assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | |
|
7,701
|
| | | | | 7,727 | | |
Other investments
|
| | |
|
1,802
|
| | | | | 1,196 | | |
Exploration mineral interests
|
| | |
|
73,039
|
| | | | | 32,015 | | |
Property, plant and equipment
|
| | |
|
2,523
|
| | | | | 2,385 | | |
Intangible assets
|
| | |
|
4,340
|
| | | | | 7,451 | | |
Other non-current assets
|
| | |
|
5,861
|
| | | | | 4,121 | | |
Total assets
|
| | |
$
|
153,531
|
| | | | $ | 71,721 | | |
Liabilities and Equity | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
| | |
$
|
10,195
|
| | | | $ | 6,458 | | |
Deferred consideration payable
|
| | |
|
26,562
|
| | | | | — | | |
Loan from parent
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 5,756 | | |
Lease liabilities, current
|
| | |
|
342
|
| | | | | 585 | | |
Contract liability
|
| | |
|
3,484
|
| | | | | 2,425 | | |
| | | |
|
40,583
|
| | | | | 15,224 | | |
Non-current liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred income taxes
|
| | |
|
5,382
|
| | | | | 6,309 | | |
Convertible debt
|
| | |
|
78,832
|
| | | | | — | | |
Lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
| | |
|
55
|
| | | | | 143 | | |
Other non-current liabilities
|
| | |
|
865
|
| | | | | 1,353 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | |
|
125,717
|
| | | | | 23,029 | | |
Commitments and contingencies (Note 29) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net parent investment
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 43,520 | | |
Common stock, par value $0.0001; 750,000,000 shares authorized; 63.9 million shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2021
|
| | |
|
6
|
| | | | | — | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | |
|
75,743
|
| | | | | — | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | |
|
(52,314)
|
| | | | | — | | |
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
| | |
|
(1,502)
|
| | | | | (1,538) | | |
Equity attributable to the Company / Parent Equity
|
| | |
|
21,933
|
| | | | | 41,982 | | |
Non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
5,881
|
| | | | | 6,710 | | |
Total equity
|
| | |
|
27,814
|
| | | | | 48,692 | | |
Total liabilities and equity
|
| | |
$
|
153,531
|
| | | | $ | 71,721 | | |
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Revenue
|
| | |
$
|
4,652
|
| | | | $ | 4,633 | | | | | $ | 3,752 | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | |
|
(1,520)
|
| | | | | (1,785) | | | | | | (1,806) | | |
Gross profit
|
| | |
|
3,132
|
| | | | | 2,848 | | | | | | 1,946 | | |
Operating expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Exploration expenses
|
| | |
|
39,505
|
| | | | | 14,094 | | | | | | 12,906 | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | |
|
20,402
|
| | | | | 11,651 | | | | | | 10,768 | | |
Research and development expenses
|
| | |
|
3,825
|
| | | | | 3,629 | | | | | | 4,171 | | |
Selling and marketing expenses
|
| | |
|
149
|
| | | | | 75 | | | | | | 281 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | |
|
60,749
|
| | | | | 26,601 | | | | | | 26,180 | | |
Other expenses (income): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest expense, net
|
| | |
|
1,534
|
| | | | | 175 | | | | | | 114 | | |
Foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
| | |
|
(254)
|
| | | | | (502) | | | | | | 265 | | |
Share of loss of equity method investees
|
| | |
|
213
|
| | | | | 71 | | | | | | 90 | | |
Loss on revaluation of investments
|
| | |
|
634
|
| | | | | 2,909 | | | | | | 2,452 | | |
Loss on revaluation of convertible debt
|
| | |
|
4,571
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other expenses, net
|
| | |
|
580
|
| | | | | 217 | | | | | | 360 | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | |
|
68,027
|
| | | | | 29,471 | | | | | | 29,461 | | |
Income taxes
|
| | |
|
484
|
| | | | | 381 | | | | | | (717) | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
|
68,511
|
| | | | | 29,852 | | | | | | 28,744 | | |
Less loss attributable to non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
(9,191)
|
| | | | | (4,618) | | | | | | (4,110) | | |
Net loss attributable to common stockholders or parent
|
| | |
|
59,320
|
| | | | | 25,234 | | | | | | 24,634 | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
|
68,511
|
| | | | | 29,852 | | | | | | 28,744 | | |
Other comprehensive loss (income), net of tax: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
| | |
|
(89)
|
| | | | | 361 | | | | | | (230) | | |
Other comprehensive loss (income)
|
| | |
|
(89)
|
| | | | | 361 | | | | | | (230) | | |
Comprehensive loss
|
| | |
$
|
68,422
|
| | | | $ | 30,213 | | | | | $ | 28,514 | | |
Comprehensive loss attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stockholders or parent
|
| | |
|
59,284
|
| | | | | 25,477 | | | | | | 24,368 | | |
Non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
9,138
|
| | | | | 4,736 | | | | | | 4,146 | | |
| | | |
$
|
68,422
|
| | | | $ | 30,213 | | | | | $ | 28,514 | | |
Net loss per share attributable to common stockholders or parent
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | |
$
|
0.96
|
| | | | $ | 0.42 | | | | | $ | 0.41 | | |
Weighted-average common shares outstanding
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | |
|
61,502,094
|
| | | | | 59,909,344 | | | | | | 59,909,344 | | |
| | |
Common Stock
|
| |
Additional
paid-in capital |
| |
Net
parent investment |
| |
Accumulated
deficit |
| |
Accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) |
| |
Non-
controlling interest |
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2018
|
| | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 28,103 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | (1,561) | | | | | $ | 763 | | | | | $ | 27,305 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (24,634) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (4,110) | | | | | | (28,744) | | |
Other comprehensive loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 266 | | | | | | (36) | | | | | | 230 | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 28,666 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 28,666 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling
interests |
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,148 | | | | | | 3,148 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2019
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 32,135 | | | | | | — | | | | | | (1,295) | | | | | | (235) | | | | | | 30,605 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (25,234) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (4,618) | | | | | | (29,852) | | |
Other comprehensive loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (243) | | | | | | (118) | | | | | | (361) | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 36,619 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 36,619 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling
interests |
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 11,681 | | | | | | 11,681 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 43,520 | | | | | | — | | | | | | (1,538) | | | | | | 6,710 | | | | | | 48,692 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (7,006) | | | | | | (52,314) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (9,191) | | | | | | (68,511) | | |
Other comprehensive loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | | | | 36 | | | | | | 53 | | | | | | 89 | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 29,140 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 29,140 | | |
Restructuring upon spin off (Note 1)
|
| | | | 59,909,344 | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | 65,648 | | | | | | (65,654) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs
|
| | | | 4,015,990 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9,678 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 9,678 | | |
Share-based compensation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 2,800 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 406 | | | | | | 3,206 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling
interests |
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (2,383) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,903 | | | | | | 5,520 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | | 63,925,334 | | | | | $ | 6 | | | | | $ | 75,743 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | (52,314) | | | | | $ | (1,502) | | | | | $ | 5,881 | | | | | $ | 27,814 | | |
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Operating activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
$
|
(68,511)
|
| | | | $ | (29,852) | | | | | $ | (28,744) | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment
|
| | |
|
375
|
| | | | | 403 | | | | | | 486 | | |
Amortization of intangible assets
|
| | |
|
3,169
|
| | | | | 2,985 | | | | | | 3,022 | | |
Amortization of operating lease right-of-use-assets
|
| | |
|
706
|
| | | | | 652 | | | | | | 368 | | |
Share-based compensation
|
| | |
|
3,667
|
| | | | | 1,145 | | | | | | 382 | | |
Unrealized foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
| | |
|
(376)
|
| | | | | (502) | | | | | | 265 | | |
Finance expense
|
| | |
|
1,405
|
| | | | | 415 | | | | | | 436 | | |
Share of loss of equity method investees
|
| | |
|
213
|
| | | | | 71 | | | | | | 90 | | |
Income taxes
|
| | |
|
495
|
| | | | | (267) | | | | | | (717) | | |
Loss on revaluation of convertible debt
|
| | |
|
4,571
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Loss on revaluation of investments
|
| | |
|
634
|
| | | | | 2,909 | | | | | | 2,452 | | |
Other
|
| | |
|
210
|
| | | | | 69 | | | | | | 316 | | |
Changes in other operating assets and liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Trade accounts receivable
|
| | |
|
1,456
|
| | | | | (312) | | | | | | (568) | | |
Inventory
|
| | |
|
(2,340)
|
| | | | | (1,016) | | | | | | (9) | | |
Operating lease liabilities
|
| | |
|
(781)
|
| | | | | (714) | | | | | | (431) | | |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
| | |
|
6,262
|
| | | | | 184 | | | | | | 38 | | |
Other operating assets and liabilities
|
| | |
|
1,013
|
| | | | | 846 | | | | | | (365) | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | |
|
(47,832)
|
| | | | | (22,984) | | | | | | (22,979) | | |
Investing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Purchase of mineral interests
|
| | |
|
(14,400)
|
| | | | | (14,634) | | | | | | (3,805) | | |
Purchase of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets
|
| | |
|
(3,992)
|
| | | | | (2,092) | | | | | | (201) | | |
Purchase of investments subject to significant influence
|
| | |
|
(870)
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (5,318) | | |
Purchase of other investments
|
| | |
|
(1,607)
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other
|
| | |
|
(1,763)
|
| | | | | (20) | | | | | | (171) | | |
Net cash used in investing activities
|
| | |
|
(22,632)
|
| | | | | (16,746) | | | | | | (9,495) | | |
Financing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Proceeds from issuance of common stock, net of issuance costs
|
| | |
|
9,677
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Proceeds from Ivanhoe Electric convertible notes
|
| | |
|
49,999
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Proceeds from VRB convertible bond, net of issuance costs
|
| | |
|
22,857
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | |
|
23,152
|
| | | | | 30,367 | | | | | | 30,011 | | |
Proceeds from subsidiary financings
|
| | |
|
5,291
|
| | | | | 16,301 | | | | | | 1,461 | | |
Repayment of loan from parent
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | (2,773) | | | | | | — | | |
Loan from parent
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 192 | | | | | | 2,525 | | |
Other
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | (40) | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | |
|
110,976
|
| | | | | 44,087 | | | | | | 33,957 | | |
Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
|
(3)
|
| | | | | 285 | | | | | | 124 | | |
Increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
|
40,509
|
| | | | | 4,642 | | | | | | 1,607 | | |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the year
|
| | |
|
9,341
|
| | | | | 4,699 | | | | | | 3,092 | | |
Cash and cash equivalents, end of the year
|
| | |
$
|
49,850
|
| | | | $ | 9,341 | | | | | $ | 4,699 | | |
Supplemental cash flow information | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash paid for interest
|
| | |
$
|
—
|
| | | | $ | 57 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Cash paid for income taxes
|
| | |
|
634
|
| | | | | 648 | | | | | | — | | |
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Settlement of loan from parent (Note 24)
|
| | |
$
|
5,886
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Issuance of common stock in exchange for assets (Note 1)
|
| | |
|
65,654
|
| | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Asset
|
| |
Basis
|
|
Equipment and vehicles
|
| |
3 to 10 years
|
|
Computer equipment
|
| |
3 to 5 years
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
| |
Shorter of useful life and remaining lease term
|
|
Asset
|
| |
Basis
|
|
Patents and licenses
|
| |
5 to 20 years
|
|
Software
|
| |
1 to 5 years
|
|
Artificial Intelligence intellectual property
|
| |
5 years
|
|
| | |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
December 31,
2020 |
| ||||||
Trade accounts receivable
|
| | | $ | 881 | | | | | $ | 2,016 | | |
Other receivables
|
| | | | 504 | | | | | | 825 | | |
| | | | $ | 1,385 | | | | | $ | 2,841 | | |
| | |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
December 31,
2020 |
| ||||||
Raw materials
|
| | | $ | 5,129 | | | | | $ | 2,922 | | |
Work-in-progress
|
| | | | 749 | | | | | | 616 | | |
| | | | $ | 5,878 | | | | | $ | 3,538 | | |
| | |
Carried at fair value
|
| |
Equity Method
|
| | | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Sama
(Note a) |
| |
Fjordland
(Note b) |
| |
SNC
(Note c) |
| |
CMH &
Omnisom (Note d) |
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2019
|
| | | $ | 6,689 | | | | | $ | 1,077 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 3,101 | | | | | $ | 993 | | | | | $ | 11,860 | | |
Purchase of shares
|
| | | | 5,318 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,318 | | |
Change in fair value
|
| | | | (1,534) | | | | | | (686) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (2,220) | | |
Share of loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (66) | | | | | | (24) | | | | | | (90) | | |
Derecognition of investment
|
| | | | (464) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (464) | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 40 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (6) | | | | | | 34 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2019
|
| | | | 10,009 | | | | | | 431 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,035 | | | | | | 963 | | | | | | 14,438 | | |
Change in fair value
|
| | | | (4,511) | | | | | | 734 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (3,777) | | |
Share of loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (37) | | | | | | (34) | | | | | | (71) | | |
Derecognition of investment
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (2,998) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (2,998) | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 44 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 91 | | | | | | 135 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
| | | | 5,498 | | | | | | 1,209 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,020 | | | | | | 7,727 | | |
Investment
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 870 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 870 | | |
Change in fair value
|
| | | | 221 | | | | | | 91 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 312 | | |
Share of loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (213) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (213) | | |
Impairment
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (954) | | | | | | (954) | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (66) | | | | | | (41) | | |
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | $ | 5,719 | | | | | $ | 1,325 | | | | | $ | 657 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 7,701 | | |
| | |
Santa
Cruz (Note a) |
| |
Tintic
Project (Note b) |
| |
Pinaya
Project (Note c) |
| |
San
Matias (Note d) |
| |
Mineral
Royalty (Note e) |
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2020
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 6,888 | | | | | $ | 2,516 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 750 | | | | | $ | 150 | | | | | $ | 10,304 | | |
Acquisition costs
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 7,000 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 13,607 | | | | | | 958 | | | | | | 150 | | | | | | 21,715 | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (4) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (4) | | |
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 13,888 | | | | | | 2,512 | | | | | | 13,607 | | | | | | 1,708 | | | | | | 300 | | | | | | 32,015 | | |
Acquisition costs
|
| | | | 35,075 | | | | | | 5,700 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 250 | | | | | | 41,025 | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (1) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | | | | | | | (1) | | |
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | $ | 35,075 | | | | | $ | 19,588 | | | | | $ | 2,511 | | | | | $ | 13,607 | | | | | $ | 1,708 | | | | | $ | 550 | | | | | $ | 73,039 | | |
Year
|
| |
Option
payments |
| |||
2022
|
| | | | 5,788 | | |
2023
|
| | | | 5,287 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 11,075 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2021
|
| |
December 31, 2020
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Gross
Carrying Amount |
| |
Accumulated
depreciation |
| |
Net
Carrying Amount |
| |
Gross
Carrying Amount |
| |
Accumulated
depreciation |
| |
Net
Carrying Amount |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Equipment and vehicles
|
| | | | 3,076 | | | | | | (2,161) | | | | | | 915 | | | | | | 2,754 | | | | | | (2,232) | | | | | | 522 | | |
Computer equipment
|
| | | | 400 | | | | | | (120) | | | | | | 280 | | | | | | 584 | | | | | | (328) | | | | | | 256 | | |
Leasehold improvements
|
| | | | 582 | | | | | | (406) | | | | | | 176 | | | | | | 530 | | | | | | (356) | | | | | | 174 | | |
Land
|
| | | | 720 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 720 | | | | | | 718 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 718 | | |
Right of use assets
|
| | | | 4,435 | | | | | | (4,003) | | | | | | 432 | | | | | | 4,274 | | | | | | (3,559) | | | | | | 715 | | |
Total property, plant and equipment
|
| | | | 9,213 | | | | | | (6,690) | | | | | | 2,523 | | | | | | 8,860 | | | | | | (6,475) | | | | | | 2,385 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2021
|
| |
December 31, 2020
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Gross
Carrying Amount |
| |
Accumulated
amortization |
| |
Net
Carrying Amount |
| |
Gross
Carrying Amount |
| |
Accumulated
amortization |
| |
Net
Carrying Amount |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Patents and licenses
|
| | | | 13,835 | | | | | | (13,328) | | | | | | 507 | | | | | | 13,843 | | | | | | (13,019) | | | | | | 824 | | |
Computer Software
|
| | | | 1,201 | | | | | | (1,194) | | | | | | 7 | | | | | | 1,202 | | | | | | (1,195) | | | | | | 7 | | |
Artificial intelligence intellectual property
|
| | | | 14,119 | | | | | | (10,293) | | | | | | 3,826 | | | | | | 14,057 | | | | | | (7,437) | | | | | | 6,620 | | |
Total intangible assets
|
| | | | 29,155 | | | | | | (24,815) | | | | | | 4,340 | | | | | | 29,102 | | | | | | (21,651) | | | | | | 7,451 | | |
| | |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
December 31,
2020 |
| ||||||
Value added taxes recoverable
|
| | | $ | 1,699 | | | | | $ | 1,487 | | |
Related party advances (Note 24)
|
| | | | 1,855 | | | | | | 1,307 | | |
Other
|
| | | | 2,307 | | | | | | 1,327 | | |
| | | | $ | 5,861 | | | | | $ | 4,121 | | |
| | |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
December 31,
2020 |
| ||||||
Trade accounts payable
|
| | | $ | 5,721 | | | | | $ | 1,319 | | |
Accrued liabilities
|
| | | | 2,888 | | | | | | 1,103 | | |
Warranty provision
|
| | | | 26 | | | | | | 108 | | |
Payable for Next acquisition (Note a)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 3,211 | | |
Other payables
|
| | | | 1,560 | | | | | | 717 | | |
| | | | $ | 10,195 | | | | | $ | 6,458 | | |
| | |
Ivanhoe
Electric Convertible Notes (Note a) |
| |
VRB
Convertible bond (Note b) |
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Debt issuance
|
| | | | 49,999 | | | | | | 22,857 | | | | | | 72,856 | | |
Finance expense
|
| | | | 405 | | | | | | 1,000 | | | | | | 1,405 | | |
Change in fair value
|
| | | | 4,571 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 4,571 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | $ | 54,975 | | | | | $ | 23,857 | | | | | $ | 78,832 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2021
|
|
Risk free interest rate
|
| |
0.48% to 1.35%
|
|
Historical volatility
|
| |
75%
|
|
Dividend yield
|
| |
0%
|
|
| | |
Fair
value |
| |
10% increase
in share price |
| |
10% decrease
in share price |
| |||||||||
Convertible notes
|
| | | $ | 54,975 | | | | | $ | 55,390 | | | | | $ | 54,829 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Ivanhoe Electric (Note a)
|
| | | $ | 2,144 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Kaizen
|
| | | | 211 | | | | | | 49 | | | | | | 18 | | |
Cordoba
|
| | | | 784 | | | | | | 270 | | | | | | 281 | | |
VRB
|
| | | | 61 | | | | | | 56 | | | | | | 83 | | |
CGI
|
| | | | 467 | | | | | | 770 | | | | | | — | | |
| | | | $ | 3,667 | | | | | $ | 1,145 | | | | | $ | 382 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Cost of sales
|
| | | $ | 333 | | | | | $ | 549 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Exploration expenses
|
| | | | 1,558 | | | | | | 58 | | | | | | 77 | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | | 1,776 | | | | | | 538 | | | | | | 305 | | |
| | | | $ | 3,667 | | | | | $ | 1,145 | | | | | $ | 382 | | |
| | |
Grant date:
June 30, 2021 |
| |||
Fair value of common stock
|
| | | $ | 2.49 | | |
Expected volatility
|
| | | | 73.7% | | |
Expected life of options (in years)
|
| | | | 2.6 | | |
Expected dividend rate
|
| | | | 0% | | |
Risk-free interest rate
|
| | | | 0.23% | | |
| | |
Number
of options |
| |
Weighted-
Average Exercise Price |
| |
Weighted-
Average Remaining Contractual Term (years) |
| |||||||||
Outstanding at January 1, 2020
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Granted
|
| | | | 4,483,322 | | | | | | 2.49 | | | | | | — | | |
Exercised
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Forfeited/expired
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Outstanding at December 31, 2021
|
| | | | 4,483,322 | | | | | $ | 2.49 | | | | | | 4.5 | | |
Exercisable at December 31, 2021
|
| | | | 1,120,822 | | | | | $ | 2.49 | | | | | | 4.5 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
Revenue type
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Data processing services (Note a)
|
| | | $ | 4,512 | | | | | $ | 4,212 | | | | | $ | 3,032 | | |
Energy storage systems (Note b)
|
| | | | 140 | | | | | | 236 | | | | | | 442 | | |
Other
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 185 | | | | | | 278 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 4,652 | | | | | $ | 4,633 | | | | | $ | 3,752 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
Project
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
San Matias, Colombia (Cordoba) (Note 10(d))
|
| | | $ | 13,789 | | | | | $ | 5,399 | | | | | $ | 5,456 | | |
Santa Cruz, USA (Note 10(a))
|
| | | | 9,966 | | | | | | 923 | | | | | | 943 | | |
Tintic, USA (Note 10(b))
|
| | | | 2,474 | | | | | | 1,336 | | | | | | 2,346 | | |
Ivory Coast Project, Ivory Coast (Note 20)
|
| | | | 1,931 | | | | | | 10 | | | | | | 17 | | |
Hog Heaven, USA (Note 20)
|
| | | | 2,029 | | | | | | 336 | | | | | | — | | |
Pinaya, Peru (Kaizen) (Note 10(c))
|
| | | | 1,774 | | | | | | 1,613 | | | | | | 641 | | |
Desert Mountain, USA
|
| | | | 821 | | | | | | 177 | | | | | | — | | |
Perseverance, USA (Cordoba) (Note 20)
|
| | | | 742 | | | | | | 488 | | | | | | 610 | | |
Yangayu, Papua New Guinea
|
| | | | 497 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
South Voisey’s Bay, Canada (Note 20)
|
| | | | 355 | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | 11 | | |
Bitter Creek, USA
|
| | | | 340 | | | | | | 174 | | | | | | — | | |
Lincoln, USA
|
| | | | 235 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Project Generation and other
|
| | | | 4,552 | | | | | | 3,620 | | | | | | 2,882 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 39,505 | | | | | $ | 14,094 | | | | | $ | 12,906 | | |
Project
|
| |
Investment
in Project Sponsor |
| |
Net
Carrying Value of Project Entity |
| |
Cumulative Earn-In
Expenditures as of December 31, 2021 |
| |
Ownership
percentage of project entity at December 31, 2021 |
| |
Expenditures
Required to Achieve Maximum Ownership Interest |
| |
Maximum
Potential Ownership |
| ||||||||||||
Ivory Coast Project
|
| | | $ | 5,719(1) | | | | | | — | | | |
Cdn $15.7 million
|
| | | | 30% | | | |
Cdn $25 million
|
| | | | 60% | | |
South Voisey’s Bay
|
| | | $ | 1,325(1) | | | | | | — | | | |
Cdn $3.1 million
|
| | | | 0%(3) | | | |
Cdn $7.7 million
|
| | | | 65% | | |
Hog Heaven
|
| | | $ | 1,280(2) | | | | | | — | | | |
$1.9 million
|
| | | | 0%(4) | | | |
$44.5 million
|
| | | | 75% | | |
Perseverance
|
| | | $ | 383(2) | | | | | | — | | | |
Cdn $3.4 million
|
| | | | 25% | | | |
Cdn $17.5 million
|
| | | | 80% | | |
|
Mineral interests
|
| | | $ | 11,566 | | |
|
Accounts receivable
|
| | | | 1 | | |
|
Deferred tax liability
|
| | | | (4,082) | | |
|
Net assets acquired
|
| | | $ | 7,485 | | |
| | |
Kaizen
|
| |
VRB
|
| |
Cordoba
|
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2020
|
| | | | 249 | | | | | | 250 | | | | | | (675) | | | | | | (59) | | | | | | (235) | | |
Non-controlling interests share of loss
|
| | | | (1,141) | | | | | | (480) | | | | | | (2,954) | | | | | | (43) | | | | | | (4,618) | | |
Changes in non-controlling interests arising from changes in ownership interest
|
| | | | 342 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 11,167 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 11,509 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling interests
|
| | | | (50) | | | | | | (14) | | | | | | 77 | | | | | | 41 | | | | | | 54 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2020
|
| | | | (600) | | | | | | (244) | | | | | | 7,615 | | | | | | (61) | | | | | | 6,710 | | |
Non-controlling interests share of loss
|
| | | | (788) | | | | | | (879) | | | | | | (7,481) | | | | | | (43) | | | | | | (9,191) | | |
Changes in non-controlling interests arising from changes in ownership interest
|
| | | | 2,415 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,694 | | | | | | (1) | | | | | | 8,108 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling interests
|
| | | | 45 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 176 | | | | | | 33 | | | | | | 254 | | |
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | $ | 1,072 | | | | | $ | (1,123) | | | | | $ | 6,004 | | | | | $ | (72) | | | | | $ | 5,881 | | |
| | |
Kaizen
|
| |
VRB
|
| |
Cordoba
|
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Ownership percentage at December 31, 2021:
|
| | | | 82.7% | | | | | | 90.0% | | | | | | 63.3% | | | | | | 94.3% | | | | | |
|
Total assets
|
| | | | 7,680 | | | | | | 27,641 | | | | | | 20,059 | | | | | | 6,152 | | | | | | 61,532 | | |
|
Total liabilities
|
| | | | 1,487 | | | | | | 38,894 | | | | | | 5,566 | | | | | | 7,501 | | | | | | 53,448 | | |
|
Net assets
|
| | | | 6,193 | | | | | | (11,253) | | | | | | 14,493 | | | | | | (1,349) | | | | | | 8,084 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Current: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
U.S. Operations
|
| | | | | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Foreign
|
| | | | 675 | | | | | | 1,024 | | | | | | 2 | | |
Total current income tax provision / (benefit)
|
| | | | 675 | | | | | | 1,024 | | | | | | 2 | | |
Deferred: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
U.S. Operations
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Foreign
|
| | | | (191) | | | | | | (643) | | | | | | (719) | | |
Total deferred income tax provision / (benefit)
|
| | | | (191) | | | | | | (643) | | | | | | (719) | | |
Total income tax provision / (benefit)
|
| | | $ | 484 | | | | | $ | 381 | | | | | $ | (717) | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
U.S. Operations
|
| | | $ | (31,499) | | | | | $ | (5,834) | | | | | $ | 863 | | |
Foreign
|
| | | | (36,528) | | | | | | (23,637) | | | | | | (30,324) | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | (68,027) | | | | | $ | (29,471) | | | | | $ | (29,461) | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
U.S. Federal tax rate
|
| | | | 21% | | | | | | 21% | | | | | | 21% | | |
Expected income tax benefit (expense) at U.S. Federal tax rate
|
| | | $ | (14,286) | | | | | $ | (6,189) | | | | | $ | (6,187) | | |
Reconciling items: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Difference between statutory and foreign tax rate
|
| | | | (151) | | | | | | 654 | | | | | | 1,796 | | |
Permanent differences
|
| | | | 3,695 | | | | | | 962 | | | | | | (373) | | |
Change in valuation allowance
|
| | | | 11,823 | | | | | | 4,821 | | | | | | 4,067 | | |
Difference in current versus future tax rates
|
| | | | (351) | | | | | | (322) | | | | | | — | | |
Impact of changes in tax rates
|
| | | | (608) | | | | | | 693 | | | | | | (8) | | |
Other
|
| | | | 362 | | | | | | (238) | | | | | | (12) | | |
Income tax benefit (expense)
|
| | | $ | 484 | | | | | $ | 381 | | | | | $ | (717) | | |
| | |
As at December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| ||||||
Deferred tax assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Intangible assets
|
| | | $ | 91 | | | | | $ | 89 | | |
Exploration mineral interest
|
| | | | 19,488 | | | | | | 14,004 | | |
Net operating losses
|
| | | | 22,498 | | | | | | 17,249 | | |
Foreign capital losses
|
| | | | 4,285 | | | | | | 4,251 | | |
Share issuance costs
|
| | | | 202 | | | | | | 179 | | |
Convertible debt
|
| | | | 960 | | | | | | — | | |
Other
|
| | | | 97 | | | | | | 15 | | |
Total gross deferred tax assets
|
| | | | 47,621 | | | | | | 35,787 | | |
Less: valuation allowance
|
| | | | (45,619) | | | | | | (35,521) | | |
Net deferred tax assets
|
| | | | 2,002 | | | | | | 266 | | |
Deferred tax liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Exploration mineral interest
|
| | | | (6,303) | | | | | | (4,585) | | |
Intangible assets
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (162) | | |
Property, plant and equipment
|
| | | | (1,081) | | | | | | (1,828) | | |
Total gross deferred tax liabilities
|
| | | | (7,384) | | | | | | (6,575) | | |
Net deferred tax liability
|
| | | $ | (5,382) | | | | | $ | (6,309) | | |
| | |
As at December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| ||||||
Balance, beginning of year
|
| | | $ | (35,521) | | | | | $ | (30,742) | | |
(Increase) decrease due to foreign currency translation
|
| | | | 1,614 | | | | | | (195) | | |
(Increase) related to non-utilization of deferred tax assets due to uncertainty of recovery and (increase)
related to non-utilization of net operating loss carryforwards |
| | | | (11,823) | | | | | | (4,717) | | |
Decrease related to utilization and expiration of deferred tax assets, other
|
| | | | 111 | | | | | | 242 | | |
Items in equity
|
| | | | — | | | | | | (109) | | |
Balance, end of year
|
| | | | (45,619) | | | | | | (35,521) | | |
Country
|
| |
Losses
|
| |
Expiry
|
| |||
U.S.A.
|
| | | $ | 24,651 | | | |
2036 to 2041
|
|
Canada
|
| | | | 44,790 | | | |
2030 to 2041
|
|
China
|
| | | | 21,697 | | | |
2026 to 2031
|
|
Colombia
|
| | | | 46 | | | |
2030 to 2032
|
|
Peru
|
| | | | 64 | | | |
Indefinite
|
|
| | |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
December 31,
2020 |
| ||||||
CGI (Note a)
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,756 | | |
| | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 5,756 | | |
| | |
Balance outstanding as at December 31,
|
| |
Transactions for the year ended
December 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||||||||
Total Expenses | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Global Mining (Note a)
|
| | | | 993 | | | | | | 262 | | | | | | 6,776 | | | | | | 5,710 | | | | | | 6,213 | | |
Ivanhoe Capital Aviation (Note b)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,417 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
HPX (Note c)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 499 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | | 993 | | | | | | 262 | | | | | | 8,692 | | | | | | 5,710 | | | | | | 6,213 | | |
Advances | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Global Mining (Note a)
|
| | | | 1,855 | | | | | | 1,307 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
| | |
Transactions for the year ended
December 31, |
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Expense classification | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | | 5,454 | | | | | | 3,060 | | | | | | 3,248 | | |
Exploration expenses
|
| | | | 3,238 | | | | | | 2,650 | | | | | | 2,965 | | |
| | | | | 8,692 | | | | | | 5,710 | | | | | | 6,213 | | |
| | |
Year ended December 31,
|
| |||||||||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| |
2019
|
| |||||||||
Net loss attributable to common stockholders or parent
|
| | | $ | 59,320 | | | | | $ | 25,234 | | | | | $ | 24,634 | | |
Weighted-average number of shares outstanding | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | | | 61,502,094 | | | | | | 59,909,344 | | | | | | 59,909,344 | | |
Basic and diluted net loss per share
|
| | | $ | 0.96 | | | | | $ | 0.42 | | | | | $ | 0.41 | | |
| | |
December 31, 2021
|
| |
December 31, 2020
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Level 1
|
| |
Level 2
|
| |
Level 3
|
| |
Level 1
|
| |
Level 2
|
| |
Level 3
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Financial assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 7,044 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 6,707 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other investments
|
| | | | 1,802 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,196 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total financial assets
|
| | | $ | 8,846 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 7,903 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Financial liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ivanhoe Electric convertible notes
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 54,975 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Deferred consideration payable
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 26,562 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Total financial liabilities
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 81,537 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
| | |
As at and for the year ended December 31, 2021
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Critical Metals
|
| |
Data Processing
|
| |
Energy Storage
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 4,512 | | | | | $ | 140 | | | | | $ | 4,652 | | |
Intersegment revenues
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 112 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 112 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | 53,188 | | | | | | 633 | | | | | | 6,928 | | | | | | 60,749 | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 826 | | | | | | 2,865 | | | | | | 559 | | | | | | 4,250 | | |
Segment Assets
|
| | | | 119,738 | | | | | | 6,152 | | | | | | 27,641 | | | | | | 153,531 | | |
Expenditures for segment assets
|
| | | | 14,832 | | | | | | 8 | | | | | | 341 | | | | | | 15,181 | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 7,701 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,701 | | |
| | |
As at and for the year ended December 31, 2020
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Critical Metals
|
| |
Data Processing
|
| |
Energy Storage
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 185 | | | | | $ | 4,212 | | | | | $ | 236 | | | | | $ | 4,633 | | |
Intersegment revenues
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 135 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 135 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | 21,054 | | | | | | 752 | | | | | | 4,795 | | | | | | 26,601 | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 790 | | | | | | 2,783 | | | | | | 466 | | | | | | 4,039 | | |
Segment Assets
|
| | | | 52,041 | | | | | | 10,348 | | | | | | 9,332 | | | | | | 71,721 | | |
Expenditures for segment assets
|
| | | | 14,911 | | | | | | 7 | | | | | | 85 | | | | | | 15,003 | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 7,727 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,727 | | |
| | |
As at and for the year ended December 31, 2019
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Critical Metals
|
| |
Data Processing
|
| |
Energy Storage
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | 278 | | | | | $ | 3,032 | | | | | $ | 442 | | | | | $ | 3,752 | | |
Intersegment revenues
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 117 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 117 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | | | 18,477 | | | | | | 1,293 | | | | | | 6,410 | | | | | | 26,180 | | |
Depreciation and amortization
|
| | | | 595 | | | | | | 2,718 | | | | | | 563 | | | | | | 3,876 | | |
Segment Assets
|
| | | | 33,502 | | | | | | 11,802 | | | | | | 7,473 | | | | | | 52,777 | | |
Expenditures for segment assets
|
| | | | 3,969 | | | | | | 5 | | | | | | 32 | | | | | | 4,006 | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 14,438 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 14,438 | | |
| | |
As at December 31,
|
| |||||||||
| | |
2021
|
| |
2020
|
| ||||||
Total long-lived assets
|
| | | $ | 73,854 | | | | | $ | 32,692 | | |
Total current assets
|
| | | | 58,265 | | | | | | 16,826 | | |
Mineral Royalty (Note 10(e))
|
| | | | 1,708 | | | | | | 1,708 | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 7,701 | | | | | | 7,727 | | |
Other investments
|
| | | | 1,802 | | | | | | 1,196 | | |
Intangible assets
|
| | | | 4,340 | | | | | | 7,451 | | |
Other non-current assets
|
| | | | 5,861 | | | | | | 4,121 | | |
Total assets and segment assets
|
| | | $ | 153,531 | | | | | $ | 71,721 | | |
Project
|
| |
Cumulative
Earn-In Expenditures as of December 31, 2021 |
| |
Expenditures
Necessary to Earn Initial Ownership Interest |
| |
Earn-In
Expenditures Required to Achieve Maximum Ownership Interest |
| |
Maximum
Potential Ownership |
| ||||||
Carolina
|
| | | $ | — | | | |
$6.0 million
|
| |
$26.0 million
|
| | | | 85% | | |
| | |
March 31,
2022 |
| |
December 31,
2021 |
| ||||||
Assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
$
|
29,769
|
| | | | $ | 49,850 | | |
Accounts receivable
|
| | |
|
1,132
|
| | | | | 1,385 | | |
Inventory
|
| | |
|
6,327
|
| | | | | 5,878 | | |
Prepaid expenses and deposits
|
| | |
|
1,193
|
| | | | | 1,152 | | |
| | | |
|
38,421
|
| | | | | 58,265 | | |
Non-current assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | |
|
12,486
|
| | | | | 7,701 | | |
Other investments
|
| | |
|
2,531
|
| | | | | 1,802 | | |
Exploration mineral interests
|
| | |
|
76,250
|
| | | | | 73,039 | | |
Property, plant and equipment
|
| | |
|
3,558
|
| | | | | 2,523 | | |
Intangible assets
|
| | |
|
3,617
|
| | | | | 4,340 | | |
Other non-current assets
|
| | |
|
4,792
|
| | | | | 5,861 | | |
Total assets
|
| | |
$
|
141,655
|
| | | | $ | 153,531 | | |
Liabilities and Equity | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Current liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
| | |
$
|
12,838
|
| | | | $ | 10,195 | | |
Deferred consideration payable
|
| | |
|
24,741
|
| | | | | 26,562 | | |
Lease liabilities, current
|
| | |
|
553
|
| | | | | 342 | | |
Contract liability
|
| | |
|
3,281
|
| | | | | 3,484 | | |
| | | |
|
41,413
|
| | | | | 40,583 | | |
Non-current liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Deferred income taxes
|
| | |
|
5,570
|
| | | | | 5,382 | | |
Convertible debt
|
| | |
|
82,222
|
| | | | | 78,832 | | |
Lease liabilities, net of current portion
|
| | |
|
837
|
| | | | | 55 | | |
Other non-current liabilities
|
| | |
|
412
|
| | | | | 865 | | |
Total liabilities
|
| | |
|
130,454
|
| | | | | 125,717 | | |
Commitments and contingencies (Note 14) | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Equity: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stock, par value $0.0001; 750,000,000 shares authorized; 63.9 million
shares issued and outstanding as of March 31, 2022 (December 31, 2021 – 63.9 million) |
| | |
|
6
|
| | | | | 6 | | |
Additional paid-in capital
|
| | |
|
76,625
|
| | | | | 75,743 | | |
Accumulated deficit
|
| | |
|
(67,766)
|
| | | | | (52,314) | | |
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
| | |
|
(1,400)
|
| | | | | (1,502) | | |
Equity attributable to the Company
|
| | |
|
7,465
|
| | | | | 21,933 | | |
Non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
3,736
|
| | | | | 5,881 | | |
Total equity
|
| | |
|
11,201
|
| | | | | 27,814 | | |
Total liabilities and equity
|
| | |
$
|
141,655
|
| | | | $ | 153,531 | | |
| | |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||
Revenue
|
| | |
$
|
6,762
|
| | | | $ | 1,559 | | |
Cost of sales
|
| | |
|
(52)
|
| | | | | (317) | | |
Gross profit
|
| | |
|
6,710
|
| | | | | 1,242 | | |
Operating expenses: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Exploration expenses
|
| | |
|
17,323
|
| | | | | 6,261 | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | |
|
5,226
|
| | | | | 2,795 | | |
Research and development expenses
|
| | |
|
1,331
|
| | | | | 956 | | |
Selling and marketing expenses
|
| | |
|
36
|
| | | | | 23 | | |
Loss from operations
|
| | |
|
17,206
|
| | | | | 8,793 | | |
Other expenses (income): | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest expense, net
|
| | |
|
762
|
| | | | | 89 | | |
Foreign exchange loss (gain)
|
| | |
|
189
|
| | | | | (376) | | |
Gain on revaluation of investments
|
| | |
|
(4,659)
|
| | | | | (1,217) | | |
Loss on revaluation of convertible debt
|
| | |
|
2,632
|
| | | | | — | | |
Other expenses (income), net
|
| | |
|
223
|
| | | | | (489) | | |
Loss before income taxes
|
| | |
|
16,353
|
| | | | | 6,800 | | |
Income taxes
|
| | |
|
1,321
|
| | | | | (236) | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
|
17,674
|
| | | | | 6,564 | | |
Less loss attributable to non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
(2,222)
|
| | | | | (1,911) | | |
Net loss attributable to common stockholders or parent
|
| | |
|
15,452
|
| | | | | 4,653 | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
|
17,674
|
| | | | | 6,564 | | |
Other comprehensive income, net of tax: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
| | |
|
(106)
|
| | | | | (8) | | |
Other comprehensive income
|
| | |
|
(106)
|
| | | | | (8) | | |
Comprehensive loss
|
| | |
$
|
17,568
|
| | | | $ | 6,556 | | |
Comprehensive loss attributable to: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Common stockholders or parent
|
| | |
|
15,350
|
| | | | | 4,639 | | |
Non-controlling interests
|
| | |
|
2,218
|
| | | | | 1,917 | | |
| | | |
$
|
17,568
|
| | | | $ | 6,556 | | |
Net loss per share attributable to common stockholders | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | |
$
|
0.24
|
| | | | $ | 0.08 | | |
Weighted-average common shares outstanding | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Basic and diluted
|
| | |
|
63,925,334
|
| | | | | 59,909,344 | | |
| | |
Common Stock
|
| |
Additional
paid-in capital |
| |
Net
parent investment |
| |
Accumulated
deficit |
| |
Accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) |
| |
Non-
controlling interest |
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Shares
|
| |
Amount
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at January 1, 2021
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 43,520 | | | | | | — | | | | | | (1,538) | | | | | | 6,710 | | | | | | 48,692 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (4,653) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (1,911) | | | | | | (6,564) | | |
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 13 | | | | | | (5) | | | | | | 8 | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,606 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 5,606 | | |
Other changes in non-controlling
interests |
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 398 | | | | | | 398 | | |
Balance at March 31, 2021
|
| | | | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 44,473 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | (1,525) | | | | | $ | 5,192 | | | | | $ | 48,140 | | |
Balance at January 1, 2022
|
| | | | 63,925,334 | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | 75,743 | | | | | | — | | | | | | (52,314) | | | | | | (1,502) | | | | | | 5,881 | | | | | | 27,814 | | |
Net loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (15,452) | | | | | | — | | | | | | (2,222) | | | | | | (17,674) | | |
Other comprehensive income
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 102 | | | | | | 4 | | | | | | 106 | | |
Share-based compensation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 882 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 73 | | | | | | 955 | | |
Balance at March 31, 2022
|
| | | | 63,925,334 | | | | | $ | 6 | | | | | $ | 76,625 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | (67,766) | | | | | $ | (1,400) | | | | | $ | 3,736 | | | | | $ | 11,201 | | |
| | |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||
Operating activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net loss
|
| | |
$
|
(17,674)
|
| | | | $ | (6,564) | | |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to cash provided by (used in) operating activities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment
|
| | |
|
95
|
| | | | | 138 | | |
Amortization of intangible assets
|
| | |
|
766
|
| | | | | 784 | | |
Amortization of operating lease right-of-use-assets
|
| | |
|
192
|
| | | | | 167 | | |
Share-based compensation
|
| | |
|
955
|
| | | | | 460 | | |
Unrealized foreign exchange (gain) loss
|
| | |
|
225
|
| | | | | (358) | | |
Finance expense
|
| | |
|
758
|
| | | | | 98 | | |
Income taxes
|
| | |
|
1,321
|
| | | | | (236) | | |
Loss on revaluation of convertible debt
|
| | |
|
2,632
|
| | | | | — | | |
Gain on revaluation of investments
|
| | |
|
(4,659)
|
| | | | | (1,217) | | |
Other
|
| | |
|
344
|
| | | | | (661) | | |
Changes in other operating assets and liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Trade accounts receivable
|
| | |
|
253
|
| | | | | 181 | | |
Inventory
|
| | |
|
(449)
|
| | | | | (70) | | |
Operating lease liabilities
|
| | |
|
(267)
|
| | | | | (215) | | |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
| | |
|
1,134
|
| | | | | (1,681) | | |
Other operating assets and liabilities
|
| | |
|
(245)
|
| | | | | (1) | | |
Net cash used in operating activities
|
| | |
|
(14,619)
|
| | | | | (9,175) | | |
Investing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Purchase of mineral interests
|
| | |
|
(4,714)
|
| | | | | (1,175) | | |
Purchase of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets
|
| | |
|
(93)
|
| | | | | (26) | | |
Purchase of investments subject to significant influence
|
| | |
|
(793)
|
| | | | | — | | |
Other
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 9 | | |
Net cash used in investing activities
|
| | |
|
(5,600)
|
| | | | | (1,192) | | |
Financing activities | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net transfer from parent
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 5,094 | | |
Proceeds from subsidiary financings
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 450 | | |
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
| | |
|
—
|
| | | | | 5,544 | | |
Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
|
138
|
| | | | | 63 | | |
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
| | |
|
(20,081)
|
| | | | | (4,760) | | |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of the year
|
| | |
|
49,850
|
| | | | | 9,341 | | |
Cash and cash equivalents, end of the period
|
| | |
$
|
29,769
|
| | | | $ | 4,581 | | |
Supplemental cash flow information | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Cash paid for income taxes
|
| | |
$
|
208
|
| | | | $ | 348 | | |
| | |
Carried at fair value
|
| |
Equity method
|
| | | | | | | ||||||||||||
| | |
Sama
|
| |
Fjordland
|
| |
SNC
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | | 5,719 | | | | | | 1,325 | | | | | | 657 | | | | | | 7,701 | | |
Change in fair value
|
| | | | 4,085 | | | | | | (111) | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,974 | | |
Investment
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 793 | | | | | | 793 | | |
Share of loss
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 18 | | |
Balance at March 31, 2022
|
| | | $ | 9,804 | | | | | $ | 1,232 | | | | | $ | 1,450 | | | | | $ | 12,486 | | |
| | |
Santa Cruz
|
| |
Tintic Project
|
| |
Pinaya Project
|
| |
San Matias
|
| |
Mineral Royalty
|
| |
Other
|
| |
Total
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Balance at December 31, 2021
|
| | | $ | 35,075 | | | | | $ | 19,588 | | | | | $ | 2,511 | | | | | $ | 13,607 | | | | | $ | 1,708 | | | | | $ | 550 | | | | | $ | 73,039 | | |
Acquisition costs
|
| | | | 1,451 | | | | | | 1,763 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 3,214 | | |
Foreign currency translation
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (3) | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | (3) | | |
Balance at March 31, 2022
|
| | | $ | 36,526 | | | | | $ | 21,351 | | | | | $ | 2,508 | | | | | $ | 13,607 | | | | | $ | 1,708 | | | | | $ | 550 | | | | | $ | 76,250 | | |
| | |
March 31,
2022 |
| |
December 31,
2021 |
| ||||||
Ivanhoe Electric convertible notes (Note a)
|
| | | $ | 57,857 | | | | | $ | 54,975 | | |
VRB convertible bond (Note b)
|
| | | | 24,365 | | | | | | 23,857 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 82,222 | | | | | $ | 78,832 | | |
| | |
March 31, 2022
|
| |
December 31, 2021
|
|
Risk free interest rate
|
| |
0.96% to 3.13%
|
| |
0.48% to 1.35%
|
|
Historical volatility
|
| |
75%
|
| |
75%
|
|
Dividend yield
|
| |
0%
|
| |
0%
|
|
| | |
Fair value
|
| |
10% increase in
share price |
| |
10% decrease in
share price |
| |||||||||
Convertible notes
|
| | | $ | 57,857 | | | | | $ | 58,503 | | | | | $ | 57,479 | | |
| | |
Three months ended
March 31: |
| |||||||||
Revenue type
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||
Software licensing (Note a)
|
| | | $ | 6,702 | | | | | $ | — | | |
Data processing services
|
| | | | 60 | | | | | | 1,486 | | |
Renewable energy storage systems (Note b)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 73 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | 1,559 | | |
| | |
Three months ended
March 31: |
| |||||||||
Project
|
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||
Santa Cruz, USA
|
| | | | 9,798 | | | | | | 197 | | |
San Matias, Colombia (Cordoba)
|
| | | | 2,376 | | | | | | 3,171 | | |
Perseverance, USA (Cordoba)
|
| | | | 1,493 | | | | | | 54 | | |
Pinaya, Peru (Kaizen)
|
| | | | 686 | | | | | | 216 | | |
Hog Heaven, USA
|
| | | | 560 | | | | | | 640 | | |
Bitter Creek, USA
|
| | | | 359 | | | | | | 13 | | |
Yangayu, Papua New guinea
|
| | | | 318 | | | | | | — | | |
Tintic, USA
|
| | | | 289 | | | | | | 364 | | |
Ivory Coast Project, Ivory Coast
|
| | | | 21 | | | | | | 487 | | |
Lincoln, USA
|
| | | | 13 | | | | | | — | | |
Desert Mountain, USA
|
| | | | 6 | | | | | | 184 | | |
South Voisey’s Bay, Canada
|
| | | | 4 | | | | | | 2 | | |
Project Generation and other
|
| | | | 1,400 | | | | | | 933 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 17,323 | | | | | $ | 6,261 | | |
| | |
Balance outstanding as at
|
| |
Transactions
for the three months ended March 31, |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| | |
March 31,
2022 |
| |
December 31,
2021 |
| |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||||||||
Total Expenses | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Global Mining (Note a)
|
| | | | 1,018 | | | | | | 993 | | | | | | 2,737 | | | | | | 609 | | |
Ivanhoe Capital Aviation (Note b)
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 250 | | | | | | — | | |
Total
|
| | | | 1,018 | | | | | | 993 | | | | | | 2,987 | | | | | | 609 | | |
Advances | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Global Mining (Note a)
|
| | | | 1,874 | | | | | | 1,855 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
| | |
Transactions
for the three months ended March 31, |
| |||||||||
| | |
2022
|
| |
2021
|
| ||||||
Expense classification | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
General and administrative expenses
|
| | | | 1,472 | | | | | | 460 | | |
Exploration expenses
|
| | | | 1,515 | | | | | | 149 | | |
| | | | | 2,987 | | | | | | 609 | | |
| | |
March 31, 2022
|
| |
December 31, 2021
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Level 1
|
| |
Level 2
|
| |
Level 3
|
| |
Level 1
|
| |
Level 2
|
| |
Level 3
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Financial assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investments subject to significant influence
|
| | | | 11,036 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 7,044 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | |
Other investments
|
| | | | 2,531 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 1,802 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total financial assets
|
| | | $ | 13,567 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 8,846 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | |
Financial liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Convertible notes
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 57,857 | | | | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 54,975 | | |
Deferred consideration payable
|
| | | | — | | | | | | — | | | | | | 24,741 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26,562 | | |
Total financial liabilities
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 82,598 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 81,537 | | |
| | |
For the three months ended March 31, 2022
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Critical Metals
|
| |
Data Processing
|
| |
Energy Storage
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 6,762 | | | | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 6,762 | | |
Intersegment revenues
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 43 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 43 | | |
Loss (income) from operations
|
| | | | 20,780 | | | | | | (5,549) | | | | | | 1,975 | | | | | | 17,206 | | |
Segment Assets
|
| | | | 106,792 | | | | | | 8,529 | | | | | | 26,334 | | | | | | 141,655 | | |
| | |
For the three months ended March 31, 2021
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| | |
Critical Metals
|
| |
Data Processing
|
| |
Energy Storage
|
| |
Total
|
| ||||||||||||
Revenue
|
| | | $ | — | | | | | $ | 1,486 | | | | | $ | 73 | | | | | $ | 1,559 | | |
Intersegment revenues
|
| | | | — | | | | | | 28 | | | | | | — | | | | | | 28 | | |
Loss (income) from operations
|
| | | | 7,789 | | | | | | (181) | | | | | | 1,185 | | | | | | 8,793 | | |
Segment Assets
|
| | | | 53,337 | | | | | | 6,472 | | | | | | 8,701 | | | | | | 68,510 | | |
| | |
Amount to be Paid
|
| |||
SEC registration fee
|
| | | $ | 18,540 | | |
FINRA filing fee
|
| | | | 30,500 | | |
NYSE American listing fee
|
| | | | 75,000 | | |
TSX listing fee
|
| | | | 150,000 | | |
Transfer agent fees
|
| | | | 6,000 | | |
Printing and engraving expenses
|
| | | | 450,000 | | |
Legal fees and expenses
|
| | | | 2,000,000 | | |
Accounting fees and expenses
|
| | | | 1,490,000 | | |
Miscellaneous
|
| | | | 79,960 | | |
Total
|
| | | $ | 4,300,000 | | |
|
Exhibit
Number |
| |
Description
|
|
| 1.1† | | | Form of Underwriting Agreement | |
| 2.1* | | | | |
| 3.1* | | | | |
| 3.2* | | | | |
| 3.3† | | |
Form of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Registrant, to be effective upon the closing of this offering
|
|
| 3.4* | | | | |
| 3.5† | | | Form of Amended and Restated By-Laws, to be effective upon closing of this offering | |
| 4.1* | | | | |
| 4.2* | | | | |
| 4.3* | | | | |
| 4.4* | | | | |
| 4.5* | | | | |
| 4.6* | | | | |
| 4.7* | | | | |
| 4.8* | | | | |
| 5.1 | | | | |
| 10.1* | | | | |
| 10.2* | | | | |
| 10.3* | | | | |
| 10.4* | | | | |
| 10.5* | | | | |
| 10.6* | | | | |
| 10.7* | | | | |
| 10.8* | | | |
|
Exhibit
Number |
| |
Description
|
|
| 10.9* | | | | |
| 10.10#† | | | Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of October 19, 2017 | |
| 10.11#† | | | Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of October 4, 2018 | |
| 10.12#† | | | Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of October 4, 2018 | |
| 10.13#† | | | Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of October 4, 2018 | |
| 10.14#† | | | Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of June 14, 2019 | |
| 10.15* | | | | |
| 10.16† | | | Long Term Incentive Plan, to be adopted in connection with this offering | |
| 10.17* | | | | |
| 10.18* | | | | |
| 10.19† | | | Form of Indemnification Agreement | |
| 21.1* | | | | |
| 23.1 | | | | |
| 23.2 | | | | |
| 23.3* | | | | |
| 23.4 | | | | |
| 23.5* | | | | |
| 23.6* | | | | |
| 23.7* | | | | |
| 23.8* | | | | |
| 23.9* | | | | |
| 23.10* | | | | |
| 23.11* | | | | |
| 23.12* | | | | |
| 23.13* | | | | |
| 23.14* | | | | |
| 23.15* | | | | |
| 23.16* | | | | |
| 23.17* | | | | |
| 23.18* | | | | |
| 23.19* | | | | |
| 23.20* | | | | |
| 23.21* | | | | |
| 24.1* | | | |
|
Exhibit
Number |
| |
Description
|
|
| 96.1 | | | | |
| 96.2* | | | | |
| 99.1* | | | | |
| 99.2* | | | | |
| 99.3* | | | | |
| 99.4* | | | | |
| 107* | | | |
|
Signature
|
| |
Title
|
| |
Date
|
|
|
/s/ Robert Friedland
Robert Friedland
|
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer) | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
/s/ Catherine Barone
Catherine Barone
|
| | Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Francis Fannon
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Laurent Jean-Louis Frescaline
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Hirofumi Katase
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Kenneth Lau
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Patrick On Yip Tsang
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*
Ian Plimer
|
| | Director | | |
June 16, 2022
|
|
|
*By:
/s/ Robert Friedland
Robert Friedland
Attorney-in-Fact |
| | |
Exhibit 5.1
![]() | Reed Smith LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-7650 +1 212 521 5400 Fax +1 212 521 5450 reedsmith.com |
June 16, 2022
Ivanhoe Electric Inc.
606 – 999 Canada Place
Vancouver, BC V6C 3E1
Canada
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We have acted as counsel to Ivanhoe Electric, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), in connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-265175) (such registration statement, as amended through the date hereof, the “Registration Statement”) filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), relating to the offer and sale by the Company (the “Offering”) of up to 14,388,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share of the Company (the “Common Stock”), (including up to 2,158,200 shares of Common Stock subject to the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares) (the “Shares”), as set forth in the prospectus included in the Registration Statement (the “Prospectus”). The term “Shares” also includes any additional shares of Common Stock that may be issued by the Company pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act in connection with the Offering.
This opinion letter is being furnished in accordance with the requirements of Item 601(b)(5) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act.
We have reviewed originals or copies of the Registration Statement, the Prospectus, the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the Company, as amended through the date hereof, and such other corporate records, agreements and documents of the Company, certificates or comparable documents of public officials and officers of the Company and have made such other investigations as we have deemed necessary as a basis for the opinion set forth below.
In rendering the opinion set forth below, we have assumed:
a. | the genuineness of all signatures; |
b. | the legal capacity of natural persons; |
c. | the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals; |
d. | the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as duplicates or conformed copies; |
e. | as to matters of fact, the truthfulness of the representations made in certificates or comparable documents of public officials and officers of the Company; |
f. | the board of directors of the Company or a duly constituted and acting committee of such board of directors will have taken all action necessary to set the public offering price of the Shares; and |
g. | with respect to the issuance of the Shares, the amount of valid consideration paid in respect of such Shares will equal or exceed the par value of such Shares. |
We have not independently established the validity of the foregoing assumptions.
Based upon the foregoing, and subject to the qualifications, assumptions and limitations stated herein, we are of the opinion that, when the Shares are issued and sold by the Company in the manner contemplated in the Registration Statement and Prospectus against payment therefor, the Shares will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.
Our opinion is limited to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and we do not express any opinion herein concerning any other law. This opinion letter speaks only as of its date.
We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion letter as Exhibit 5.1 to the Registration Statement and to the use of our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Prospectus. In giving such consent, we do not hereby admit that we are within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission promulgated thereunder.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Reed Smith LLP
REED SMITH LLP
- 2 -
Exhibit 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the use in this Registration Statement No. 333-265175 on Form S-1 of our report dated April 21, 2022, (June [16], 2022, as to the effect of the reverse stock split described in Note 1) relating to the financial statements of Ivanhoe Electric Inc. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.
To be signed: /s/ Deloitte LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants
Vancouver, Canada
June 16, 2022
Exhibit 23.4
CONSENT
To: | Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the “Company”) |
Re: | Registration Statement on Form S-1 of the Company (the “Company”) |
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. is the authoring firm of the report titled “Technical Report Summary on the Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA”, effective and issue date June 7, 2022, regarding the mining property known as the Santa Cruz Project (the “Project”) which was prepared in accordance the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 until 1305) for Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (the “Expert Report”).
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. understands that the Company wishes to make reference to Nordmin Engineering Ltd.’s name and the Expert Report in its Registration Statement on Form S-1 (the “Registration Statement”) to be prepared and filed in connection with the Company’s initial public offering. Nordmin Engineering Ltd. further understands that the Company wishes to use extracts and/or information from, the Expert Report in the Registration Statement related to the Project. Nordmin Engineering Ltd. has been provided with a copy of the Registration Statement, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.
Accordingly, in respect of the Registration Statement, Nordmin Engineering Ltd. does hereby consent to:
· | the use of, and references to, its name in the Registration Statement; |
· | the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Registration Statement; and |
· | the use of, in the Registration Statement, extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof (“Undersigned’s Information”). |
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. confirms that where its work involved a mineral resource or mineral reserve estimate, such estimates comply with the requirements for mineral resource and mineral reserve estimation under Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. also confirms that its representatives have read the disclosure in the Registration Statement that relate to the Undersigned’s Information and the Project, and Nordmin Engineering Ltd. confirms that the disclosure included in the Registration Statement does not contain a misrepresentation.
Dated: June 7, 2022
By: | /s/ Chris Dougherty, P.Eng | ||
Name: | Chris Dougherty, P.Eng | ||
Title: | President |
Exhibit 96.1
TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY ON THE SANTA CRUZ PROJECT, ARIZONA, USA S-K 1300 REPORT
IVANHOE ELECTRIC INC.
NORDMIN ENGINEERING LTD. PROJECT NO: 22032-01
SIGNATURE DATE: JUNE 7, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 7, 2022
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 1 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
TECHNICAL REPORT SUMMARY ON THE SANTA CRUZ PROJECT, ARIZONA, USA
NORDMIN ENGINEERING LTD. PROJECT NO: 22032-01
Prepared by:
Nordmin Engineering Ltd.
160 Logan Ave., Thunder Bay, ON P7A 6R1
for:
Ivanhoe Electric Inc.
606 – 999 Canada Place
Vancouver, BC V6C 3E1
Canada
Signature Date: June 7, 2022
Effective Date: June 7, 2022
REVISION HISTORY
REV. NO | ISSUE DATE | PREPARED BY |
REVIEWED
BY |
APPROVED BY | DESCRIPTION
OF REVISION |
4.3 | December 13, 2021 | Nordmin | IVNE | Initial Draft | |
5.2 | December 17, 2021 | Nordmin | IVNE | Draft | |
5.4 | December 17, 2021 | Nordmin | QP | QP/Nordmin | Draft |
6.1 | March 8, 2022 | Nordmin | QP | QP/Nordmin | Draft |
6.2 | May 18, 2022 | Nordmin | QP | QP/Nordmin | Draft |
6.3 | June 7, 2022 | Nordmin | QP | QP/Nordmin | Final Issued |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 2 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
CONTENTS
1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 14 | ||||
1.1 | Summary | 14 | ||||
1.2 | Property Description, Ownership and Tenure | 14 | ||||
1.2.1 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements, and Permits | 14 | ||||
1.3 | Geology and Mineralization | 15 | ||||
1.4 | Status of Exploration | 15 | ||||
1.5 | Mineral Resource Estimate | 16 | ||||
1.6 | Conclusions and Recommendations | 18 | ||||
2 | INTRODUCTION | 19 | ||||
2.1 | Registrant and Purpose | 19 | ||||
2.1.1 | Information Sources and References | 19 | ||||
2.1.2 | Site Visit | 20 | ||||
2.2 | Previous Reporting | 20 | ||||
2.2.1 | Previous Exploration Reports | 20 | ||||
2.3 | Units of Measure | 21 | ||||
2.4 | Symbols, Abbreviations and Acronyms | 21 | ||||
3 | PROPERTY DESCRIPTION | 23 | ||||
3.1 | Legal Description of Real Property | 23 | ||||
3.2 | Property Location | 23 | ||||
3.3 | Land Tenure and Underlying Agreements | 23 | ||||
3.4 | Royalties | 25 | ||||
3.5 | Permits and Authorization | 26 | ||||
3.6 | Environmental Liabilities | 27 | ||||
4 | ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY | 28 | ||||
4.1 | Accessibility and Infrastructure | 28 | ||||
4.2 | Climate | 29 | ||||
4.3 | Local Resources | 29 | ||||
4.4 | Physiography | 30 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 3 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
5 | HISTORY | 31 | ||||
5.1 | Introduction | 31 | ||||
5.2 | Previous Exploration | 33 | ||||
5.2.1 | Sacaton Mine | 33 | ||||
5.2.2 | Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits | 34 | ||||
5.3 | Previous Reporting | 38 | ||||
5.3.1 | Hanna 1982 | 38 | ||||
5.3.2 | In Situ Joint Venture 1997 | 38 | ||||
5.3.3 | IMC 2013 | 38 | ||||
5.3.4 | Stantec-Mining 2013 | 39 | ||||
5.3.5 | Physical Resource Engineering 2014 | 39 | ||||
5.4 | Historical Production | 39 | ||||
5.5 | Nordmin QP Opinion | 39 | ||||
6 | GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT | 39 | ||||
6.1 | Regional Geology | 39 | ||||
6.2 | Metallogenic Setting | 40 | ||||
6.3 | Santa Cruz Project Geology | 44 | ||||
6.3.1 | Geologic Units | 47 | ||||
6.4 | Property Mineralization | 49 | ||||
6.4.1 | Hypogene Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Deposit | 51 | ||||
6.4.2 | Supergene Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Deposit | 52 | ||||
6.4.3 | Hypogene Mineralization at the Texaco Deposit | 52 | ||||
6.4.4 | Supergene Mineralization at the Texaco Deposit | 55 | ||||
6.5 | Alteration | 55 | ||||
6.5.1 | Hypogene Alteration at the Santa Cruz Deposit | 55 | ||||
6.5.2 | Supergene Alteration at the Santa Cruz Deposit | 56 | ||||
6.5.3 | Hypogene Alteration at the Texaco Deposit | 56 | ||||
6.5.4 | Supergene Alteration at the Texaco Deposit | 56 | ||||
6.6 | Structural Geology | 56 | ||||
6.7 | Deposit Types | 57 | ||||
6.8 | Nordmin QP Opinion | 60 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 4 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
7 | EXPLORATION | 61 | ||||
7.1 | IVNE Geophysical Exploration | 61 | ||||
7.2 | Historic Geophysical Exploration | 63 | ||||
7.3 | Historical Data Compilation | 64 | ||||
7.4 | Drilling | 67 | ||||
7.4.1 | Historic Drilling – Santa Cruz Deposit | 67 | ||||
7.4.2 | Historic Drilling – Texaco Deposit | 67 | ||||
7.4.3 | 2021 Drilling – IVNE | 68 | ||||
7.4.4 | 2021-2022 Drill Intercepts | 70 | ||||
7.5 | Geotechnical Data | 78 | ||||
7.6 | Hydrogeological Data | 78 | ||||
7.7 | Nordmin QP Opinion | 78 | ||||
8 | SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY | 79 | ||||
8.1 | Assay Sample Preparation and Analysis | 79 | ||||
8.1.1 | IVNE Core Sample Preparation and Analysis – 2021 | 79 | ||||
8.1.2 | Historic Core Assay Sample and Analysis | 82 | ||||
8.2 | Specific Gravity Sampling | 82 | ||||
8.3 | Quality Assurance/Quality Control Programs | 83 | ||||
8.3.1 | Standards | 83 | ||||
8.3.2 | Blanks | 89 | ||||
8.3.3 | Field and Laboratory Duplicates | 90 | ||||
8.4 | Security and Storage | 94 | ||||
8.5 | Nordmin QP’s Opinion on the Adequacy of Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures. | 94 | ||||
9 | DATA VERIFICATION | 95 | ||||
9.1 | Nordmin Site Visit 2022 | 95 | ||||
9.1.1 | Field Collar Validation | 96 | ||||
9.1.2 | Core Logging, Sampling, and Storage Facilities | 99 | ||||
9.1.3 | Independent Sampling | 102 | ||||
9.1.4 | Audit of Analytical Laboratory | 104 | ||||
9.2 | Twin Hole Analysis | 104 | ||||
9.3 | Database Validation | 108 | ||||
9.4 | Review of Company’s QA/QC | 108 | ||||
9.5 | Nordmin QP’s Opinion | 108 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 5 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
10 | MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING | 109 | ||||
10.1 | CGCC Studies (1976-1982) | 109 | ||||
10.1.1 | Sample Selection | 109 | ||||
10.1.2 | Grinding Studies | 110 | ||||
10.1.3 | Flotation Studies | 110 | ||||
10.1.4 | Leaching Studies | 111 | ||||
10.1.5 | Copper Measurement | 111 | ||||
10.2 | ASARCO Study by Mountain States Engineering (1980) | 112 | ||||
10.3 | Santa Cruz In Situ Study | 112 | ||||
10.4 | Process Factors and Deleterious Elements | 113 | ||||
10.5 | QP Opinion | 113 | ||||
11 | MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES | 114 | ||||
11.1 | Drill Hole Database | 114 | ||||
11.2 | Domaining | 115 | ||||
11.2.1 | Geological Domaining | 115 | ||||
11.2.2 | Regression | 117 | ||||
11.2.3 | Mineralization Domaining | 118 | ||||
11.3 | Exploratory Data Analysis | 119 | ||||
11.4 | Data Preparation | 123 | ||||
11.4.1 | Non-assayed Assay Intervals | 123 | ||||
11.4.2 | Outlier Analysis and Capping | 123 | ||||
11.4.3 | Compositing | 125 | ||||
11.4.4 | Specific Gravity | 125 | ||||
11.4.5 | Block Model Strategy and Analysis | 126 | ||||
11.4.6 | Assessment of Spatial Grade Continuity | 126 | ||||
11.4.7 | Block Model Definition | 130 | ||||
11.4.8 | Interpolation Method | 131 | ||||
11.4.9 | Search Strategy | 131 | ||||
11.5 | Block Model Validation | 132 | ||||
11.5.1 | Visual Comparison | 133 | ||||
11.5.2 | Swath Plots | 142 | ||||
11.6 | Mineral Resource Classification | 145 | ||||
11.7 | Copper Pricing | 147 | ||||
11.7.1 | Global Refined Copper Consumption and Production | 147 | ||||
11.7.2 | Copper Prices | 148 | ||||
11.7.3 | Commodity Price Projections | 151 | ||||
11.8 | Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction | 151 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 6 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11.9 | Mineral Resource Estimate | 153 | |
11.10 | Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cut-off | 154 | |
11.11 | Interpolation Comparison | 154 | |
11.12 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resources | 155 | |
11.13 | Nordmin’s QP Opinion | 155 | |
12 | MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES | 156 | |
13 | MINING METHODS | 156 | |
14 | PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS | 156 | |
15 | INFRASTRUCTURE | 156 | |
16 | MARKET STUDIES | 156 | |
17 | ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS | 156 | |
18 | CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS | 156 | |
19 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | 156 | |
20 | ADJACENT PROPERTIES | 157 | |
20.1 | Cactus Project | 157 | |
21 | OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION | 161 | |
22 | INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS | 161 | |
22.1 | Introduction | 161 | |
22.2 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Royalties, and Agreements | 161 | |
22.3 | Geology and Mineral Resource Modelling | 162 | |
22.4 | Exploration, Drilling, and Analytical Data Collection in Support of Mineral Resource Estimation | 162 | |
22.5 | Processing and Metallurgical Testing | 163 | |
22.6 | Mineral Resource Estimate | 163 | |
22.7 | Conclusions | 166 | |
23 | RECOMMENDATIONS | 167 | |
24 | REFERENCES | 168 | |
25 | RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT | 170 | |
26 | DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE | 171 |
APPENDIX A: Property and Rights
APPENDIX B: Standard, Blank and Duplicate Charts
APPENDIX C: Data Analysis Grade Domains
APPENDIX D: Block Model Classification Images
APPENDIX E: Block Model Validation Images
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 7 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Land ownership | 25 |
Figure 3-2: Land ownership including Mainspring property location | 27 |
Figure 4-1: Location map | 30 |
Figure 4-2: Average temperatures and precipitation | 31 |
Figure 5-1: Historic drill collars, IMC mineral inventory outlines and historic deposit and exploration target names (white) as well as current project names for IVNE and Arizona Sonoran Copper Company assets (in yellow). | 34 |
Figure 6-1: Regional geology of Cu porphyry belt and map of location of Cu porphyry deposits hosted in the area | 43 |
Figure 6-2: Map of structures related to extension during the mid-Cenozoic | 44 |
Figure 6-3: Generalized cross-section through well-developed supergene enrichment profile showing geochemical stratigraphy Leached capping environment and metals mobility engendered through oxidative destruction of pyrite and Cu ore sulphides.Pyrite contributes four moles of H+(aq) per mole of pyrite, with Fe++(aq) and sulphate; ferrous iron oxidizes rapidly to H+(aq) and Fe+++(aq), the latter serving as a strong oxidizer for Cu sulphides. Cu sulphides produce nominal to no low pH solutions upon weathering. Lateral transport of iron and Cu produces ferricretes of hematite > goethite and exotic Cu as silicates, sulphates, halides, and Cu++ adsorbed onto goethite and manganese oxides. Oxidation along sheeted fractures and faults deepens the topographic base of all supergene stratigraphic intervals, as do supergene solutions migrating through phyllic and argillic-altered host rocks. Reactive host rocks shown on the margins of the figure attenuate Cu transport and produce erratic, fracture-controlled in situ development of Cu oxides; such in situ development of Cu oxides would be characteristic of K-silicate–altered (potassic) rock volumes. For scale, note that any of the three supergene-related geochemical zones may be variably developed such that thicknesses may range from nominal to several hundred metres as a function of the maturity of the weathering profile. Abbreviations: bn = bornite, cp = chalcopyrite, HW = hanging wall, mt = magnetite, py = pyrite (Chávez, 2021) | 45 |
Figure 6-4: Santa Cruz property mineralization cross-section (ASARCO, 1978) | 46 |
Figure 6-5: Cross-section of the Santa Cruz system (Vikre et al.2014) | 47 |
Figure 6-6: Plan map of the diatreme pipes, maar and tephra deposits at the Santa Cruz Project (Vikre et al.2014) | 48 |
Figure 6-7: Simplified stratigraphic section of the Santa Cruz Project (IVNE documents) | 49 |
Figure 6-8: Plan map of simplified mineralization and alteration zonation at the Texaco deposit (Kreis, 1978) | 55 |
Figure 6-9: Historic cross-section of mineralization and alteration zonation at the Texaco deposit (Kreis, 1978) | 56 |
Figure 6-10: Simplified alteration and mineralization zonation model of a porphyry Cu deposit, after Lowell and Guilbert, 1970. | 60 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 8 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-11: Schematic representation of an exotic Cu deposit and its relative position to an exposed porphyry Cu system (Fernandez-Mote et al., 2018; modified after Münchmeyer 1996; Sillitoe 2005). | 61 |
Figure 6-12: Typical Cu porphyry cross-section displaying hypogene and supergene mineralization processes and associated minerals (modified from Asmus, B., [2013]) | 62 |
Figure 7-1: Gravity data stations (left) and Arizona State aeromagnetic data (Earthfield report to IVNE, 2021) | 63 |
Figure 7-2: Proposed passive seismic survey configuration and stations showing historic mineral inventories, IVNE surface access agreements, and historic drilling | 64 |
Figure 7-3: ASARCO map illustrating interpreted ground and aeromagnetic data detailed in historic report “Recommended Drilling Santa Cruz Project,” M.A.970 Pinal County, Arizona, August 21, 1964, by W.E. Saegart | 67 |
Figure 7-4 Plan map of CG drill hole collars as blue dots | 68 |
Figure 7-5 Plan map of SC drill hole collars as red dots | 69 |
Figure 7-6: Collar locations of the historic diamond drilling (orange) versus recent 2021 IVNE twin drill holes (blue) | 72 |
Figure 7-7: Drill Hole Locations | 75 |
Figure 7-8: Drilling Overview with Section Location Overview | 76 |
Figure 7-9: Cross-Section with SCC-007 | 77 |
Figure 7-10: Cross-Section with SCC-014, SCC-017, and SCC-019 | 78 |
Figure 8-1: NTT diamond bladed automatic core saw used for cutting diamond drill core for sampling | 83 |
Figure 8-2: Core storage at IVNE offices/core shack | 84 |
Figure 8-3: (Left) samples placed in burlap and inner plastic bags labelled with sample numbers; (Right) sample batches placed in large plastic bags and bins for shipping to lab | 84 |
Figure 8-4: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard total Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories | 89 |
Figure 8-5: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories | 89 |
Figure 8-6: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories | 90 |
Figure 8-7: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard total Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories | 90 |
Figure 8-8: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard acid soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories | 91 |
Figure 8-9: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories | 91 |
Figure 8-10: Blanks submitted by IVNE to Skyline Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process | 92 |
Figure 8-11: Blanks submitted by IVNE to American Assay Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process | 93 |
Figure 8-12: Original versus field duplicate sample results as total Cu (%) from samples submitted to Skyline Laboratories | 94 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 9 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-13: Original versus field duplicate sample results as total Cu (%) from samples submitted to American Assay Laboratories | 95 |
Figure 8-14: Duplicates completed by Skyline Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process | 96 |
Figure 8-15: Duplicates completed by American Assay Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process | 96 |
Figure 9-1: Map of check drill hole collars from the 2022 site visit, also displaying all diamond drill hole collars | 100 |
Figure 9-2: Map of historic drill hole collars, also displaying all diamond drill hole collars | 101 |
Figure 9-3: Collars for historic diamond drill holes CG-091 and CG-030 | 102 |
Figure 9-4: IVNE core logging facility located in Casa Grande, Arizona | 103 |
Figure 9-5: Core photography station at the IVNE core logging facility | 104 |
Figure 9-6: Nordmin independent sampling total Cu (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories | 106 |
Figure 9-7: Nordmin independent sampling acid soluble Cu (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories | 106 |
Figure 9-8: Nordmin independent sampling of cyanide soluble (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories | 107 |
Figure 9-9: Collar locations of historic diamond drilling (orange) versus recent 2021 IVNE twin drill holes (blue) | 108 |
Figure 9-10: Comparison of assays from SCC-001 versus CG-027. A) shows the direct comparison of total Cu assays as Cu (%). B) SCC-001 and CG-027 showing downhole charts of acid soluble Cu assays (%) on the left and total Cu (%) assays on the right. | 109 |
Figure 11-1: Plan view of Santa Cruz Project diamond drilling | 117 |
Figure 11-2: Domaining hierarchy of the Santa Cruz Project | 118 |
Figure 11-3: Santa Cruz deposit domain idealized cross-section | 120 |
Figure 11-4: Histogram and log probability plots for the Cu-oxide LG Sub-Domain | 124 |
Figure 11-5: Histogram and log probability plots for the primary Cu LG Sub-Domain | 124 |
Figure 11-6: Histogram and log probability plots for the chalcocite enrichment LG Sub-Domain | 125 |
Figure 11-7: Histogram and log probability plots for the exotic Cu LG Sub-Domain | 125 |
Figure 11-8: Primary Domain total Cu variogram | 131 |
Figure 11-9: Oxide Domain total Cu variogram | 131 |
Figure 11-10: Oxide Domain acid soluble Cu variogram | 132 |
Figure 11-11: Chalcocite Enriched Domain Total Cu Variogram | 132 |
Figure 11-12: Exotic Domain Total Cu Variogram | 133 |
Figure 11-13: Cross-section outlining the analysis of cyanide soluble Cu estimation within the Chalcocite Enriched Domain | 136 |
Figure 11-14: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section | 137 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 10 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-15: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section | 138 |
Figure 11-16: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section | 139 |
Figure 11-17: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section | 140 |
Figure 11-18: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section | 141 |
Figure 11-19: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section | 142 |
Figure 11-20: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section | 143 |
Figure 11-21: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section | 144 |
Figure 11-22: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section | 145 |
Figure 11-23: Swath plots, total cu | 146 |
Figure 11-24: Swath plots, acid soluble cu | 146 |
Figure 11-25: Swath plots, cyanide soluble cu | 147 |
Figure 11-26: Plan section demonstrating resource classification, -260 m depth | 148 |
Figure 11-27: Plan section demonstrating resource classification, -475 m depth | 149 |
Figure 11-28: Vertical section displaying resource classification | 150 |
Figure 11-29: Global copper demand 2000-2040 | 151 |
Figure 11-30: A century of Cu prices | 152 |
Figure 11-31: Projected mine supply demand to 2040 | 154 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 11 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG | 18 |
Table 2-1: Symbols, Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Technical Report | 22 |
Table 4-1: Description of Physiography of the Casa Grande Area, Santa Cruz Exploration Property | 32 |
Table 5-1: Sacaton Historic Mine Production (Fiscal Years Ended December 31) | 35 |
Table 5-2: History of Exploration Activities Across the Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits | 36 |
Table 7-1: Summary of Historic Exploration on the Santa Cruz Project and Surrounding Area | 65 |
Table 7-2 Summary of Available Data by Region | 69 |
Table 7-3: Drilling History Within the Santa Cruz Project Area | 70 |
Table 7-4: Drilling History Within the Texaco Exploration Target Area of the Santa Cruz Project | 70 |
Table 7-5 IVNE 2021 Drilling on the Santa Cruz Deposit | 71 |
Table 7-6: Santa Cruz Project SG Measurements | 73 |
Table 7-7: 2021-2022 Drilling Summary | 74 |
Table 7-8: Notable 2021-2022 Diamond Drill Hole Intercepts | 79 |
Table 8-1: CRMs Inserted by IVNE into Sample Batches Sent to Skyline Laboratories | 87 |
Table 8-2: CRMs Inserted by IVNE into Sample Batches Sent to American Assay Laboratories | 88 |
Table 8-3: Skyline Laboratory Submitted CRMs | 88 |
Table 8-4: American Assay Laboratory Submitted CRMs | 88 |
Table 9-1: Check Coordinates for IVNE 2021 Drilling, March 3, 2022 | 99 |
Table 9-2: Check Coordinates for Historic Drilling Within the Santa Cruz Deposit, March 3, 2022 | 100 |
Table 9-3: Original Assay Values Versus Nordmin Check Sample Assay Values from the 2022 Site Visit | 105 |
Table 9-4: Downhole Lithology Logging Comparison of CG-027 versus SCC-001 | 109 |
Table 11-1: Drill Hole Count Summary | 117 |
Table 11-2: Mineral Resource Estimate Number of Assays by Assay Type | 118 |
Table 11-3: Santa Cruz Geological Domains | 118 |
Table 11-4: Regression Analysis for Acid Soluble Cu | 120 |
Table 11-5: Regression Analysis for Cyanide Soluble Cu | 121 |
Table 11-6: Santa Cruz Deposit Domain Wireframes | 122 |
Table 11-7: Santa Cruz Deposit Domain, Assays by Cu Grade Sub-Domain | 123 |
Table 11-8: Assays at Minimum Detection | 126 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 12 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-9: Santa Cruz Domain, Outlier Analysis, and Capping | 126 |
Table 11-10: Santa Cruz Deposit Composite Analysis | 128 |
Table 11-11: Santa Cruz Deposit Variography Parameters | 129 |
Table 11-12: Santa Cruz Deposit Block Model Definition Parameters | 133 |
Table 11-13: Santa Cruz Deposit Block Model Search Parameters | 134 |
Table 11-14: Consensus Copper Pricing 2021-2024 | 152 |
Table 11-15: Input Parameter Assumptions | 154 |
Table 11-16: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG | 155 |
Table 11-17: Mineral Resource Sensitivity for Total Cu | 157 |
Table 11-18: Interpolation Comparison | 157 |
Table 20-1: Global Mineral Resource Estimate of the Cactus Project. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021 | 162 |
Table 20-2: Resource Estimate Utilized for the PEA. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021 | 163 |
Table 20-3: Financial Results of the Cactus Project PEA. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021 | 163 |
Table 22-1: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG | 168 |
Table 23-1: 2022 Budget | 171 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 13 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
1.1 | Summary |
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. (Nordmin) was retained by Ivanhoe Electric Inc. (IVNE or “the Company”) to prepare an independent Technical Report Summary (Technical Report) on the Santa Cruz Project, located approximately 11 km west of the town of Casa Grande in Arizona, USA. The purpose of this report is to support the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Santa Cruz Project (“the Project”), which has an effective date of December 8th, 2021. This report has an effective date of June 7th, 2022.
This Technical Report Summary conforms to United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary. Nordmin completed a visit of the property from March 2nd to March 6th, 2022.
IVNE is a private company, with their corporate office located at 606 – 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, BC V6C 3E1, Canada.
1.2 | Property Description, Ownership and Tenure |
The Santa Cruz Project is located 11 kilometres (km) west of the town of Casa Grande, Arizona, and is approximately one hour’s drive south of the capital Phoenix and covers a cluster of deposits/targets about 11 km long and 1.6 km wide. The Santa Cruz Project centroid is approximately -111.88212, 32.89319 (WGS84) in Township 6 S, Range 4E, Section 13, Quarter C.
The property and rights owned by IVNE are described in Appendix A. These rights and title have not been independently verified, and the Title Opinion and Reliance letter by Marian Lalonde dated October 29, 2021, of Fennemore Law, Tucson, Arizona, has been relied upon by Nordmin for this section of the Technical Report.
In 2021, IVNE executed an agreement with Central Arizona Resources (CAR) for the right to acquire 100% of CAR’s option over the DR Horton Energy (DRHE) mineral title and CAR’s Surface Use Agreement (SUA) with Legend Property Group (Legend).
1.2.1 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Royalties, Agreements, and Permits |
The Santa Cruz Project lies primarily on private land, which is dominantly split estate surface and minerals. IVNE holds an option on the purchase of the mineral estate while holding an exclusive agreement on surface use. Additional lands and rights have been acquired by IVNE in the form of options on private parcels and staking of unpatented federal lode mining claims. The Santa Cruz exploration area covers 77.59 km2, including 27.75 km2 of private land, 30.52 km2 of Arizona State Mineral Exploration permits, and 238 unpatented claims, or 19.32 km2 of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land.
Current exploration is conducted on private land under the SUA with Legend. Disturbance to date has been de minimis and permitting has consisted of filing Notices of Intent to Drill and to Abandon with the Arizona Department of Water Resources for each section of land on which drilling takes place.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 14 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
1.3 | Geology and Mineralization |
The Santa Cruz Project lies along a northwest to southeast trending, approximately 600 km long porphyry Cu belt that includes many productive Cu deposits such as Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, and the neighbouring Sacaton. These deposits lie within the Basin and Range province that covers most of the southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. The Cu porphyry deposits within this trend are the genetic product of igneous activity during an approximately 80 Ma to 50 Ma orogenic event that resulted in northeast-directed subduction and a northwest-southeast-striking magmatic arc (Leveille and Stegen, 2012). During tectonic extension porphyry Cu systems were variably dismembered, tilted, and buried beneath basin alluvium and conglomeratic deposits that fill the Casa Grande Valley. Prior to concealment porphyry systems of Arizona experienced supergene enrichment events that make them such economically significant deposits.
The Santa Cruz system (comprising Santa Cruz, Texaco, Parks-Salyer, and Sacaton areas) represents portions of one or more large, Laramide-aged porphyry Cu systems that have been subsequently enriched by supergene processes. Supergene enrichment is a mineral deposition process in which near-surface oxidation produces acidic solutions that leach metals, carry them downward, and reprecipitate them, thus enriching sulphide minerals already present. Sometime following the development of supergene mineralization, the Santa Cruz system was dismembered, displaced, and eventually buried as a result of tertiary Basin and Range extensional tectonism.
Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Project is generally divided into three main groups:
● | Primary hypogene sulphide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, pyrite, molybdenite, minor bornite, and covellite hosted within sulphide and quartz-sulphide stringers, veinlets, veins, vein breccias, and breccias as well as fine to coarse disseminations within vein envelopes (dominantly replacing mafic minerals biotite and hornblende) associated with hydrothermal porphyry-style mineralization and alteration related to Laramide-aged quartz-biotite-feldspar-phyric dykes (65-64 Ma from K-Ar; Balla, 1972). |
● | Secondary supergene sulphide mineralization is comprised of chalcocite (with accessory chalcopyrite-pyrite) that was incompletely replaced by chalcocite, as well as djurleite, and digenite identified in historic XRD analyses. |
● | Supergene enriched Cu mineralization, referred to as “oxide mineralization,” is dominated by chrysocolla (Cu-oxide) and atacamite (Cu-chloride) with subordinate brochantite, dioptase, tenorite, cuprite, Cu wad, and native Cu, and as Cu-bearing montmorillonite. |
1.4 | Status of Exploration |
The exploration programs completed by IVNE and previous operators are appropriate for the deposit style. The programs delineated the Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits, as well as other deposits along the Santa Cruz-Sacaton Cu trend. Diamond drilling indicates the potential to further define and potentially expand on known exploration targets. A research program on in-situ mining was completed in the 1990s (see Section 5), but all equipment from the program has been removed. As of writing, there is no development or mining on the property.
The quantity and the quality of lithological, collar, and downhole survey data collected in the various exploration programs by operators are sufficient to support the Mineral Resource Estimate. The collected sampling is representative of total Cu, acid soluble Cu, cyanide soluble Cu, and molybdenum data in the Santa Cruz deposit, reflecting areas of higher, and lower grades. The analytical laboratories used for legacy and current assaying are well known in the industry, produce reliable data, are properly accredited, and are widely used within the industry.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 15 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Nordmin is not aware of any drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results. In Nordmin’s opinion, the drilling, core handling, logging, and sampling procedures meet or exceed industry standards and are adequate for the purpose of Mineral Resource Estimation.
Nordmin considers the QA/QC protocols in place for the Project to be acceptable and in line with standard industry practice. Based on the data validation and the results of the standard, blank, and duplicate analyses, Nordmin is of the opinion that the assay and specific gravity (SG) databases are of sufficient quality for Mineral Resource Estimation for the Project.
1.5 | Mineral Resource Estimate |
Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. This estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues.
The Mineral Resource Estimate was estimated from the main database of 104,184 m of diamond drilling in 121 drill holes spanning from 1964 to 2021. Nordmin, through an interactive process with IVNE, examined the historic interpretations of the mineralization. In 2021 IVNE completed four twin diamond drill holes (4,738 m) of historic drill holes. Nordmin utilized these drill holes and reviewed the assays, lithology, and mineralization to confirm the accuracy of the historic drilling as well as to determine the spatial controls on grade variations within the Project.
The Santa Cruz deposit model consists of four main Cu domains: the Exotic Domain, Oxide Domain, Chalcocite Enriched Domain, and Primary Domain. The Oxide Domain and Primary Domain are separated by a theoretical geochemical boundary defined by a 2:1 ratio of acid soluble Cu to total Cu. The Exotic Domain is separated by lithology and is only found above the Oracle Granite within Tertiary sediments. From a modelling perspective, each Cu-mineralized domain was further sub-domained into high, medium, and low grade (LG) domains to constrain grade distribution and geochemical differences. Overlap between domains exists between the Chalcocite Enriched Domain and Primary Domain, as well as the Chalcocite Enriched Domain and Oxide Domain, respectively.
Detailed wireframing of domains was completed in section and plan view to give better perspective of the depth and limits of the Cu-oxide mineralization. Special attention was given to consistent smoothing of wireframes to properly mimic the controls of mineralization including following the southwest dip of intrusives, and the steep topography of the Oracle Granite within the fault block. When not cut-off by drilling, the wireframes within each domain terminate at either the contact of the Cu-oxide boundary layer, the Tertiary sediments/Oracle Granite contact or D2 fault structure. There is an overlap of cyanide soluble Cu with either acid soluble Cu in the weathered supergene domain or with primary Cu in the primary hypogene mineralization domain. A block model has been fully validated with no material bias identified.
Mineral Resources were classified into Indicated and Inferred categories based on geological and grade continuity, in conjunction with data quality, spatial continuity based on variography, estimation pass, data density, and block model representativeness, specifically assay spacing and abundance, kriging variance, and search volume block estimation assignment.
The Mineral Resource Estimate has been defined based on an applied percentage (%) total copper (Cu) cut-off grade (CoG) to reflect processing methodology and assumed revenue stream from Cu.
The Mineral Resource Estimate is based on an underground mining methodology and surface leach float process to recover cathode Cu or a mixture of cathode Cu and Cu saleable concentrates.
The Santa Cruz deposit Mineral Resource Estimate is presented in Table 1-1 and has an effective date of December 8, 2021.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 16 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 1-1: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG
Domain |
Resource Category
|
Kilotonnes kt |
Total Cu % |
Total Soluble Cu % |
Acid Soluble Cu % |
Cyanide Soluble Cu % |
Total Cu kt |
Total Soluble Cu kt |
Acid Soluble Cu kt |
Cyanide Soluble Cu kt |
Exotic | Indicated | 6,989 | 1.05 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 73 | 56 | 51 | 5 |
Inferred | 11,680 | 1.28 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 149 | 118 | 115 | 3 | |
Oxide | Indicated | 52,990 | 1.34 | 1.27 | 0.98 | 0.29 | 708 | 669 | 518 | 151 |
Inferred | 126,138 | 1.06 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.29 | 1,336 | 1,253 | 892 | 361 | |
Chalcocite Enriched | Indicated | 29,145 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 364 | 328 | 115 | 213 |
Inferred | 14,838 | 1.36 | 1.28 | 0.52 | 0.76 | 202 | 191 | 78 | 113 | |
Primary | Indicated | 184,877 | 0.75 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1,394 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Inferred | 96,098 | 0.59 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 568 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
TOTAL | ||||||||||
Indicated | 274,000 | 0.93 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 2,539 | 1,053 | 684 | 369 | |
Inferred | 248,754 | 0.91 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 2,255 | 1,563 | 1,085 | 478 |
Notes on Mineral Resources
1. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared by Nordmin Engineering Ltd and the Mineral Resources were prepared in accordance with Mineral Resources have been classified in accordance with the definitions for Mineral Resources in S-K 1300. |
2. | Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues are known that may affect this estimate of Mineral Resources. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 17 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
3. | Verification included multiple site visits to inspect drilling, logging, density measurement procedures and sampling procedures, and a review of the control sample results used to assess laboratory assay quality. In addition, a random selection of the drill hole database results was compared with original records. |
4. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate for the Santa Cruz deposit used Datamine Studio RMTM software to create the block models. |
5. | The Mineral Resources have an effective date of December 8, 2021. |
6. | Underground Mineral Resources are reported at a CoG of 0.35% Total Cu, which is based upon a Cu price of US$$3.70/lb and a Cu recovery factor of 80%. |
7. | SG was applied using weighted averages by lithology. |
8. | All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates, and totals may not add correctly. |
9. | Excludes unclassified mineralization located along edges of the Santa Cruz deposit where drill density is poor. |
10. | Report from within a mineralization envelope accounting for mineral continuity. |
11. | Acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu are not reported for the Primary Domain. |
There is a potential to increase the Mineral Resource by using infill drilling to expand and increase the Mineral Resource category.
Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource Estimate include:
● | Changes to long term metal price assumptions. |
● | Changes to the input values for mining, processing, and G&A costs to constrain the estimate. |
● | Changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones. |
● | Changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones. |
● | Changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions. |
● | Changes in assumption of marketability of the final product. |
● | Variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and mining assumptions. |
● | Changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements. |
● | Changes to environmental, permitting, and social licence assumptions. |
● | Logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labour, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics and other public health crises, including COVID-19, or similar such viruses. |
1.6 | Conclusions and Recommendations |
Under the assumptions presented in this Technical Report, and based on the available data, the Mineral Resources show reasonable prospects of economic extraction. Exploration activities have shown that the Santa Cruz deposit retains significant potential. Additional infill drilling in the categories of Inferred and Indicated Resource is warranted.
The recommended program is focused on drilling, analytical, metallurgical test work, geological modelling, Mineral Resource Estimation, economic studies (Preliminary Economic Assessment) and environmental baseline studies to support permitting efforts. The recommendations are estimated to require a 2022 budget of $73.7 million.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 18 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
2 | INTRODUCTION |
2.1 | Registrant and Purpose |
Nordmin was retained by IVNE to prepare an independent Technical Report Summary on the Santa Cruz Project located approximately 11 km west of the town of Casa Grande in Arizona, USA. This Technical Report is effective as of June 7, 2022 and supersedes all prior technical reports prepared for the Santa Cruz Project and was created for the purpose of defining and supporting a Mineral Resource Estimate for the Santa Cruz Project.
This Technical Report Summary conforms to United States SEC Modernized Property Disclosure Requirements for Mining Registrants as described in Subpart 229.1300 of Regulation S-K, Disclosure by Registrants Engaged in Mining Operations (S-K 1300) and Item 601 (b)(96) Technical Report Summary.
Nordmin visited the property from March 2nd to March 6th, 2022.
IVNE is a private company, with their corporate office located at 606 – 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, BC V6C 3E1, Canada.
2.1.1 | Information Sources and References |
This Technical Report is based, in part, on internal Company technical reports and maps, published government reports, company letters and memoranda, and public information as listed in Section 24. Several sections from reports authored by other consultants have been directly quoted or summarized in this Technical Report and are so indicated where appropriate.
A draft copy of this Technical Report has been reviewed for factual errors by IVNE.
Any statements and opinions expressed in this document are given in good faith and in the belief that such statements and opinions are not false and misleading at the date of this Technical Report.
During the preparation of this Technical Report and the site visit, discussions were held with the following personnel:
● | Eric Castleberry, PG – US Operations Manager, IVNE |
● | Shawn Vandekerhove – Senior Geologist, IVNE |
● | Lucas Forster – Geologist, IVNE |
● | Andrea Cade – Reporting Geologist, IVNE |
● | Charlie Forster – VP Exploration, IVNE |
● | Eric Finlayson – President, IVNE |
● | Mark Gibson – COO, IVNE |
● | Christopher Seligman, MAusIMM CP(Geo) – Senior Geologist, IVNE |
● | Graham Boyd – VP, US Projects, IVNE |
● | Christian Ballard, P.Geo. – Sr. Geologist, Nordmin |
● | Annika Van Kessel – Geologist in Training, Nordmin |
● | James J. Moore, P.E. - President, Met Engineering, LLC. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 19 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
2.1.2 | Site Visit |
Nordmin completed a visit to the Santa Cruz Project site from March 2nd to March 6th, 2022.
Activities during the site visits included:
● | Review of the geological and geographical setting of the Santa Cruz Project. |
● | Review and inspection of the site geology, mineralization, and structural controls on mineralization. |
● | Review of the drilling, logging, sampling, analytical and QA/QC procedures. |
● | Review of the chain of custody of samples from the field to the assay lab. |
● | Review of the drill logs, drill core, storage facilities, and independent assay verification on selected core samples. |
● | Confirmation of several drill hole collar locations. |
● | Review of the structural measurements recorded within the drill logs and how they are utilized within the 3D structural model. |
● | Validation of a portion of the drill hole database. |
IVNE geologists completed the geological mapping, core logging, and sampling associated with each drill location. Therefore, Nordmin relied on IVNE’s database to review the core logging procedures, the collection of samples, and the chain of custody associated with the drilling programs. IVNE provided Nordmin with digital copies of the logging and assay reports. All drilling data, including collars, logs, and assay results, were provided to Nordmin prior to the site visit. No significant issues were identified during the site visit.
2.2 | Previous Reporting |
Historical resources and estimates exist on the property and predate the Company’s acquisition. The following historical information is relevant to provide context but is not current and should not be relied upon. The Company has not verified the relevance and reliability of the estimate, key assumptions, parameters, and methods used to prepare the estimate and require further exploration work by the Company to appropriately determine the relevance and reliability of the non-compliant historical estimations. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves and the Company is not treating the historical estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves
2.2.1 | Previous Exploration Reports |
● | Watts Griffis McOuat Ltd. (WGM), 1982. Non-compliant ore and mining reserve for Hanna Mining in 1982. |
● | In-situ Joint Venture, 1999. |
● | Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC), 2013. Non-compliant block model for the Texaco deposit. |
● | IMC, 2013. Non-compliant block model for the Parks-Salyer deposit. |
● | IMC, 2013. Non-compliant Mineral Resource for the Santa Cruz South deposit. |
● | Stantec, 2013. Non-compliant conceptual study of geologic resource and reserve. |
● | Physical Resource Engineering, 2014. Non-compliant conceptual study of geologic resource and reserve. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 20 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
2.3 | Units of Measure |
Unless otherwise noted, the following measurement units, formats, and systems are used throughout this Technical Report.
● | Measurement Units: all references to measurement units use the System International (SI, or metric) for measurement. The primary linear distance unit, unless otherwise noted, are metres (m). |
● | General Orientation: all references to orientation and coordinates in this Technical Report are presented as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) in metres unless otherwise noted. |
● | Currencies outlined in the Technical Report are stated in US$ unless otherwise noted. |
2.4 | Symbols, Abbreviations and Acronyms |
Table 2-1: Symbols, Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in this Technical Report
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 21 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 22 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
3 | PROPERTY DESCRIPTION |
3.1 | Legal Description of Real Property |
The property and rights owned by IVNE are described in Appendix A. These rights and title have not been independently verified, and the Title Opinion and Reliance letter by Marian Lalonde dated October 29, 2021, of Fennemore Law, Tucson, Arizona, has been relied upon by the Nordmin QP for this section of the Technical Report.
3.2 | Property Location |
The Santa Cruz Project is located 11 km west of the town of Casa Grande, Arizona, and is approximately one hour’s drive south of the capital Phoenix (Figure 3-1). It is less than 10 km southwest of the Sacaton deposit, which was previously mined by ASARCO, and covers a cluster of deposits/targets about 11 km long and 1.6 km wide. The Santa Cruz Project centroid is approximately -111.88212, 32.89319 (WGS84) in Township 6 S, Range 4E, Section 13, Quarter C.
Figure 3-1: Land ownership
3.3 | Land Tenure and Underlying Agreements |
In 2021, IVNE executed an agreement with CAR for the right to acquire 100% of CAR’s option over the DRHE mineral title and CAR’s SUA with Legend. The Santa Cruz exploration area covers 77.59 km2, including 27.75 km2 of private land, 30.52 km2 of Arizona State Mineral Exploration permits, and 238 unpatented claims, or 19.32 km2 of BLM land (Figure 3-1).
Private Parcels
The Santa Cruz Project lies primarily on private land, which is dominantly split estate surface and minerals. IVNE holds an option on the purchase of the mineral estate, while holding an exclusive agreement on surface use. Additional lands and rights have been acquired by IVNE in the form of options on private parcels and staking of unpatented federal lode mining claims.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 23 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
DRHE Option
The agreement with DRHE provides that IVNE (by way of assignment from CAR) has the right, but not the obligation, to earn 100% of the mineral title in the fee simple mineral estate, 39 Federal Unpatented mining claims, and three small approximately 10 acre surface parcels (Figure 3-1), in cash or IVNE shares at DRHE election, over the course of three years as follows:
a. | On the Effective Date, IVNE shall pay the “Initial Payment” [paid]; and |
b. | Within five (5) days following of the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, IVNE shall pay “Due Diligence Payment” [paid]; and |
c. | On or before the first anniversary of the Effective Date, IVNE shall pay “First Payment”; and |
d. | On or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date, IVNE shall pay collectively with the Initial Payment, the Due Diligence Payment, and the First Payment, the “Option Payments”. |
e. | Following the exercise of the Option and upon the Closing Date, IVNE shall pay the “Closing Payment”. |
The agreement with DRHE also provides IVNE with a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) on certain surface parcels owned by Legend. This ROFR reserved by DRHE when the property was sold to Legend in 2007, and this right is now part of the rights being sold to IVNE and affords a great deal of control on the destiny of the surface estate overlying the Santa Cruz Project.
3.3.1.1 | Legend SUA |
The SUA with Legend Property Group allows for the exclusive use of the property for the purposes of drilling and geophysical testing, as well as granting a Right of First Offer (ROFO) on the sale of the property. Legend has granted these rights to IVNE (by way of assignment from CAR) for up to four years under the following conditions:
● | Year 1 Payment –to be paid as follows: |
● | Initial payment within five (5) days following the Effective Date [paid]. |
● | Trigger payment within five (5) days following the Trigger Date [paid]. |
● | Year 2 Payment – due on, or before the first anniversary of the Trigger Date. |
● | Year 3 Payment –due on, or before the second anniversary of the Trigger Date. |
● | Extension Period (“Fourth Year Payment”): |
● | providing written notice to Legend of its intent to extend the term of this Agreement for an additional 12 months, for a total term of 48 months; and |
● | paying to Legends the Fourth Year Payment |
3.3.1.2 | Other Parcels |
IVNE has entered into binding agreements to acquire an additional parcel of private land, called the “Mainspring” Parcel. This parcel is depicted in Figure 4-2. The lands were optioned to secure portions of, and exploration potential surrounding, the Parks-Salyer deposit.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 24 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
This acquisition is structured as an option where failure to meet any payment would lose the right to acquire the property, and is budgeted as part of the “Land and Commercial” line item in Table 26-1.
Figure 3-2: Land ownership including Mainspring property location
3.3.1.3 | Federal Unpatented Mineral Claims |
IVNE (by way of assignment and deed from CAR) holds 238 unpatented Federal Mining claims (Appendix A).
DRHE also holds 39 Federal unpatented mining claims in T06S R04E in N/2 Section 12, W/2 Section 23 and W/2 Section 24, which are subject to the option described in Section 4.1.1.
3.4 | Royalties |
Noted royalties on future mineral development of the Project are summarized here:
● | Royalty interests in favour of the royalty holders of a 5% net smelter return royalty interest for minerals derived from all portions of the property pursuant to terms contained therein recorded in the royalty document. |
● | Royalty interests in favour of the royalty holder of a 10% net smelter return royalty interest in section 13, 18, 19, and 24, Township 6 South, Range 4 East, for minerals derived from the property pursuant to terms contained therein recorded in the royalty document. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 25 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
● | Rights conveyed to the royalty holder in Sections 13, 18, 19, 24, Township 6 South, Range 4 East, consisting of 10% of one eight-hundredth of Fair Market Value and interest in the Cu and other associated minerals with additional terms, conditions, and matters contained therein, recorded in the royalty documents. |
● | Rights granted to the royalty holders, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, a royalty in sections 13, 18, 19, and 24, Township 6 South, Range 4 East, consisting of 30% of five tenths of one percent of the net smelter return from all minerals with additional terms, conditions, and matters contained therein, recorded in the royalty documents. |
● | Royalty interest of a 2.25% in favour of the royalty holder in Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 4 East, and Sections 6, 7, 8, and 17, Township 6 South, Range 5 East, for net smelter return royalty interest in minerals derived from the property pursuant to terms contained therein recorded in the royalty document. |
● | Rights conveyed to the royalty holder in Sections 13, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Township 6 South, Range 4 East and Sections 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, and 30, Township 6 South, Range 5 East, consisting of 60% of one eighth-hundredth of Fair Market Value and interest in the Cu and other minerals with additional terms, conditions, and matters contained therein, recorded in the royalty documents. |
● | Reservation of a 1% royalty interest in favour of the royalty holder recorded in the royalty document, for E1/2 of Section 5, Township 6 South, Range 5 East, south and west of Southern Pacific RR, “that when mined or extracted therefrom shall be equal in value to 1% of the net smelter returns on all ores, concentrated, and precipitates mined, and shipped from said property.” |
● | Reservation of a royalty interest in favour of the royalty holders in the SW1/4 of Section 17, Township 6 South, Range 5 East, for an amount equal to one half of 1% net smelter returns in the sale and disposal of all ores, minerals, and other products mined and removed from the above described parcel and sold to a commercial smelter or chemical hydrometallurgical plant or one half of 1% of 60% of the sales price if the mine product is disposed of other than to a commercial smelter, additional provisions contained therein, recorded in the royalty documents. |
3.5 | Permits and Authorization |
Current exploration is conducted on private land under the SUA with Legend. Disturbance to date has been de minimis and permitting has consisted of filing Notices of Intent to Drill and to Abandon with the Arizona Department of Water Resources for each section of land on which drilling takes place. IVNE will obtain additional permits as required. Specific permits to construct and operate mine facilities would be determined as the design of the Project advances.
Existing and past land uses in the Project area and immediately surrounding areas include agriculture, residential home development, light industrial facilities, and mineral exploration and development. Some dispersed recreation occurs in the area. The climate is dry, and most of the Project area is flat, sandy, and sparsely vegetated. Portions of the Project area are in the 100-year flood plain of the North Branch of Santa Cruz Wash. Within the Project area, approximately 85 acres of land located approximately ¾ mile north of the intersection of N. Spike Road and W. Clayton Road was used during an in situ leaching project in 1991. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Audit (ESA) was conducted on the Project area (Civil & Environmental Consultants 2021).
There is a large private land package covering the Project area and area of known mineralization. This private land position could result in reduced permitting time relative to projects that are required to undergo the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The precise list of permits required to authorize the construction and operation of this Project will be determined as the mining and processing methods are designed. If NEPA and other federal permitting are avoided, required permits would be administered by Arizona State, Pinal County, and Casa Grande authorities.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 26 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
The permit approval process for some permits includes review and approval of the process design. Thus, the project design must be substantially advanced to support the application for those permits. These technical permits typically represent the “longest lead” permits. Technical permits with substantial technical design are needed as part of the applications. The anticipated issuing agencies include:
- | Reclamation Plan approval (Arizona State Mine Inspector) |
- | Water permits |
- | Aquifer Protection Permit (ADEQ) |
- | Air Quality Operating Permit (Pinal County) |
3.6 | Environmental Liabilities |
The 2021 Phase 1 ESA study found no previously unmitigated environmental liabilities associated with the Santa Cruz Project.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 27 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
4 | ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY |
4.1 | Accessibility and Infrastructure |
The Santa Cruz Project is located 60 km south southwest of the Greater Phoenix metropolitan area and is accessed from the Gila Bend Highway, 9 km from the City of Casa Grande (population of 55,653 persons). The Santa Cruz Project, as shown in Figure 4-1, is surrounded by current and past-producing Cu mines and processing facilities. The Greater Phoenix area is a major population centre (approximately 4.6 million persons) with a major international airport (Phoenix Sky Harbour International Airport), and well-developed infrastructure, and services that support the mining industry. The cities of Casa Grande, Maricopa, and Phoenix can supply sufficient skilled water, electricity, labour, and supplies for the Santa Cruz Project.
Figure 4-1: Location map
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 28 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
4.2 | Climate |
The climate at the Santa Cruz Project is typical of the Sonoran Desert, with temperatures ranging from -7 °C (19 °F) to 47 ⁰C (117 °F) and average annual precipitation ranging from 76 – 500 mm (3 – 30 in) per year. Precipitation occurs as frequent low-intensity winter (December/January) rains and violent summer (July/August) “monsoon” thunderstorms (Figure 4-2). The Santa Cruz Project site contains no surface water resources. Storm runoff waters from the site are drained toward the Santa Cruz River by minor tributaries to the Santa Rosa and North Santa Cruz washes. Operations at the Santa Cruz Project site can continue year-round as there are no limiting weather or accessibility factors.
Figure 4-2: Average temperatures and precipitation
The wind is usually calm. The windiest month is May, followed by April and July. May’s average wind speed of around 5.5 knots (6.4 mph or 10.3 km/h) is considered a light breeze. IVNE will institute measures to reduce dust that could be produced at the Santa Cruz Project site.
4.3 | Local Resources |
Water rights to the property are held by Legend Property, LLC. Water for exploration drilling has been sourced from a local farm.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 29 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Electrical power is available along Midway Road with a high voltage line along the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway along the northern edges of the Santa Cruz Project area. Also, an east-west rail line parallels the Highway and passes through Casa Grande. A natural Gas line is available along Clayton Road on the southern side of the Project area.
IVNE is securing water rights and additional lands surrounding the Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits (see Section 3) to allow for future mine development activities including potential tailings storage, potential waste disposal and heap leach pad, and processing plant areas as well as space for ramps for underground development.
4.4 | Physiography |
The Santa Cruz Project is located in the Middle Gila Basin, entirely within the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion of Basin and Range Physiographic Province. The area is characterized by relatively low, jagged mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial-filled basins. This portion of the Sonoran Desert is sparsely vegetated with greater variability near washes and in areas that have lain fallow long. Near washes and longer abandoned areas, catclaw acacia, mesquite, creosote bush, bursage, and salt cedar are common. The Santa Cruz Project area is flat and featureless with an elevation of 403±5 masl and sloping gently to the northwest. The majority of the Santa Cruz Project area has been used for irrigated agriculture, with decaying remnants of an extensive system of wells and concrete lined ditches still present. The alignments of furrows are still visible despite decades of lying fallow. Efforts at real estate development in the 1990s and 2000s have also left visible remnants with preliminary roadworks and some planting (palm trees) overlying the previous agricultural remains. Soils proximal to washes tend to be more sand and gravel-rich, while soils in old agricultural areas are more silt and clay-rich. The physiography is further described in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Description of Physiography of the Casa Grande Area, Santa Cruz Exploration Property
General Physiographic Area | Intermontane Plateaus |
Physiographic Province | Basin and Range |
Physiographic Section | Sonoran Desert |
Alteration | Potassic, Phyllic, and Argillic – more intense in mineralized areas |
Associated Rocks | Breccia Conglomerate Schist Porphyry Granite Diabase |
Rock Unit Names | Pinal Schist Oracle Granite Gila Conglomerate Laramide Porphyry |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 30 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
5 | HISTORY |
5.1 | Introduction |
Historically, there are three main deposit areas that make up the Santa Cruz project, including Texaco (to the northeast), Santa Cruz North directly southwest of Texaco, and Casa Grande West/Santa Cruz South which is the southernmost deposit (see Figure 5-1). ASARCO owned and drilled the Texaco and Santa Cruz North deposits and Hanna-Getty the Casa Grande/ Santa Cruz South deposit (Table 6 2). In 1990 ASARCO entered into a joint venture with Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. on the Texaco land position (Table 5-2). Hanna-Getty continued to own and operate the Casa Grande West/Santa Cruz South deposit. The ownership and operations history is further described in Table 5-2.
The first discovery of Cu mineralization in the area occurred in February 1961 by geologists from ASARCO. They discovered a small outcrop of leached capping composed of granite cut by a thin monzonite porphyry dyke. The outcrop was altered to quartz-sericite-clay with weak but pervasive jarosite-goethite and a few specks of hematite after chalcocite, particularly in the dyke.
ASARCO proceeded with preliminary geophysical surveys that same year, including induced polarization (IP), resistivity, seismic reflection, and magnetics. Upon positive results from the geophysical surveys, a small drill program of six holes was funded, with the last hole being the first to intersect the significant mineralization that became known as the West Orebody and, in time, the Sacaton open pit mine (Figure 5-1).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 31 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 5-1: Historic drill collars, IMC mineral inventory outlines and historic deposit and exploration target names (white) as well as current project names for IVNE and Arizona Sonoran Copper Company assets (in yellow).
Bolstered by the discovery at Sacaton, ASARCO expanded exploration efforts across the Casa Grande Valley and in 1964 the first hole was drilled on the Santa Cruz Project. By May 1965, seventeen drill holes were completed without similar success, and ASARCO reduced their land position. Subsequent reviews in 1970-1971 deemed the Santa Cruz Project worth renewed exploration activity. Following the initiation of the Santa Cruz Joint Venture (SCJV) between ASARCO Santa Cruz, Inc. and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. in 1974, additional ground was acquired around the Santa Cruz North deposit. By this time, various joint ventures, as below, had staked considerable ground over and around what would eventually be the Casa Grande West (now Santa Cruz South) deposit.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 32 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
In 1973, David Lowell put together an exploration program called “the Covered Area Project” (CAP) that was funded first by Newmont Mining, then, in succession, by a joint venture between Newmont and Hanna Mining, then Hanna with Getty Oil Corp. and Quintana; though both Quintana and Newmont would pull out of the project before any discoveries were made. In 1974, after having systematically drilled over 120 holes at 20 projects across Southwestern Arizona, David Lowell and his team focused their attention on the Santa Cruz system (which Lowell and his team called “the Casa Grande Project”). ASARCO had just put the Sacaton operation into production and Lowell and associates were aware of the evidence for shallow angle faulting and potential for dissected porphyry mineralization that might have been displaced undercover in the Casa Grande Valley (Lowell, unpublished personal communication). Furthermore, the CAP program had compiled historic data of the area that indicated several water wells drilled had returned pebbles of Cu-oxide mineralization. Careful stream mapping and drainage analysis revealed that the Santa Cruz River had reversed flow directions at least twice in recent history, and it was this revelation that allowed Lowell to trace the exogenous oxide-Cu pebbles back to the Santa Cruz deposit area. They discovered evidence for porphyry mineralization in their first drill hole, which intersected leached capping, and by their seventh hole (CG-7), they had intersected ore grade supergene enriched Cu mineralization at what would be called the Casa Grande West deposit. Drilling under the CAP program continued through to 1977, at which point Hanna Mining took over as operator under a joint venture with operation funding from Getty Oil Corp. Between 1977 and 1982, Hanna-Getty advanced a tight spaced drill program that delineated an estimated 500 million tonnes of 1% Cu at Casa Grande West, and countless exploration holes in the surrounding Casa Grande Valley (Lowell unpublished personal communication). The decision to go underground and mine the Casa Grande West deposit was never made, and the combination of encroaching real estate, the growing environmental movement, and potential mismanagement by Hanna-Getty followed by the fall of Cu commodity prices all resulted in the Casa Grande West project becoming inactive in the early 80s.
5.2 | Previous Exploration |
5.2.1 | Sacaton Mine |
ASARCO went on to mine the Sacaton deposit from 1974 to 1984. The Sacaton deposit was mined using open pit methods with the beginnings of underground workings initiated but depressed Cu prices resulted in the halt of all mining at Sacaton. Table 5-1 shows the historic mine production from Sacaton.
Table 5-1: Sacaton Historic Mine Production (Fiscal Years Ended December 31)
Source: Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Preliminary Economic Assessment (NI 43-101), August 2021.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 33 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
5.2.2 | Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits |
Several other deposits, including Santa Cruz South (also known as Casa Grande West), Santa Cruz North (Santa Cruz North and South are collectively referred to as “Santa Cruz”), Texaco, and Parks-Salyer were identified during ASARCO drilling in the 1960s and subsequent drilling in the 1970s and 1980s by numerous exploration companies including Newmont Mining, Hanna, Hanna-Getty, and a joint venture between ASARCO Santa Cruz Inc. and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Company (SCJV). In total, 362 drill holes totalling 229,577 m have been drilled by previous owners delineating the cluster of deposits. Table 5-2 presents a summarized history of exploration on the property. There are no records of work by Texaco, but the company held land over what is now called the Texaco deposit.
Table 5-2: History of Exploration Activities Across the Santa Cruz and Texaco Deposits
Dates | Activities | Company(s) | Description | Notes |
1961 | Prospecting and discovery | ASARCO | ASARCO geologists Kinnison and Blucher identify Sacaton Discovery Outcrop | An outcrop of granite with a thin dyke of porphyry was discovered. |
1961 | Geophysical Surveying | ASARCO | ASARCO Geophysical Dept. report | Geophysical surveys including IP, resistivity, magnetics. |
1962 | Drilling | ASARCO | Six exploration drill holes at Sacaton | First five holes cut sulphides, but only a few short runs of ore grade rock. The sixth hole was the first hole within the West Orebody. |
1964 | Drilling | ASARCO | Five holes were drilled near the Santa Cruz deposit by ASARCO (SC-2 to SC-6) | These were exploration drill holes, none of which intersected the main mineralization at Santa Cruz. SC-5 was drilled nearly 3 km SW of the main deposit. |
1965 | Drilling | ASARCO | 11 holes drilled near the Santa Cruz deposit by ASARCO (SC-7 to SC-17) | These were exploration drill holes, SC-1 was drilled along the western margin of the subsequent Independent Mining Consultants, Inc. (IMC) block model. And SC-16 was just to the East of the future Santa Cruz North deposit. SC-17 was drilled approximately 4 km SW of the Casa Grande deposit (furthest step out exploration hole in the database). |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 34 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Dates | Activities | Company(s) | Description | Notes |
1974 | Drilling and Discovery | Hanna-Getty | Five holes were drilled around Santa Cruz North and one at Casa Grande by Hanna-Getty (CG-1 to CG-6) | Six holes drilled by Hanna-Getty under the CAP led by Lowell, one of which (CG-3) intersected near ore grade mineralization along the western boundary of what would become the Santa Cruz North and Casa Grande deposits. |
1974 | Drilling and Discovery | ASARCO | SC-18,19 and 20 are drilled at Santa Cruz North by ASARCO | Following the initiation of exploration in the Santa Cruz area by the CAP initiative, led by Lowell, ASARCO re-initiated exploration drilling in the area. All three holes intersected porphyry-style mineralization at what would be called the Santa Cruz North deposit. |
1975 | Drilling | Hanna-Getty | Two holes were drilled at Casa Grande, two holes drilled at Santa Cruz North and one hole drilled at Texaco by Hanna-Getty (CG-7 to CG-11) | Hole CG-7 was the first intersection of ore grade mineralization, as reported by Lowell. |
1975 | Drilling and Discovery | ASARCO | Four holes were drilled at Santa Cruz North and one at Texaco by ASARCO (SC-21 to SC-24) | ASARCO drilled five holes, 3 nearby 1974 drilling that intersected mineralization at Santa Cruz North, and two exploration step out holes each 1.5 km to the NE of the Santa Cruz North area, SC-21, and SC-23 which intersected the Texaco deposit mineralization. |
1976 | Drilling and land position expansion | Hanna-Getty | Two holes were drilled at Santa Cruz North and 14 holes drilled at Casa Grande by Hanna-Getty (CG-12 to CG-33) | Bolstered by success in CG-7, and led by Lowell, key ground over what would eventually be the Casa Grande deposit was picked up, and exploration drilling advanced through 1976. |
1976 | Drilling | ASARCO | One hole was drilled approximately 1 km NE of the Casa Grande deposit (SC-25), and six holes were drilled at Texaco (SC-27, -28, -29, -30, -31, and -34) |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 35 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Dates | Activities | Company(s) | Description | Notes |
1977 | Drilling and Operatorship change | Hanna-Getty | One hole was drilled at Texaco (CG-48), and 45 holes were drilled at Casa Grande (CG-34-CG-79) | Hanna-Getty took over operatorship from Lowell and the CAP team and began a close-spaced drill program to delineate the ore body at Casa Grande. |
1977 | Drilling | ASARCO | Six holes were drilled at Texaco and 12 holes drilled at Santa Cruz North by ASARCO (SC-35 to SC-52) | |
1978 | Drilling | Hanna-Getty | One hole was drilled north of Santa Cruz North and 31 holes drilled at Casa Grande by Hanna-Getty (CG-80 to CG-122) | |
1979 | Drilling | Hanna-Getty | Six holes drilled by Hanna-Getty approximately 1 km west of the Casa Grande and Santa Cruz North deposits | |
1979 | Drilling | ASARCO | Four holes were drilled at Santa Cruz North by ASARCO (SC-55 to SC-58) | |
1980 | Drilling | ASARCO | Six holes were drilled at Santa Cruz North by ASARCO (SC-59 to SC-64) | |
1981 | Drilling | Hanna-Getty | Two holes were drilled north and west of Santa Cruz North | |
1982 | Drilling | Hanna-Getty | Two holes were drilled north and west of Santa Cruz North | |
1990-1991 | Land Consolidation | SCJV (ASARCO, Santa Cruz Inc., and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.) – Texaco | Texaco approached SCJV (ASARCO-Freeport) regarding the sale of the Texaco land position | A series of internal memos from SCJV discussed the opportunity and holding costs and why they should acquire the lands from Texaco. |
1994 | In situ Cu Mining Research Project | US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and SCJV | Permits received to begin injection of sulphuric acid. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 36 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Dates | Activities | Company(s) | Description | Notes |
1995 | In situ Cu Mining Research Project | USBR – SCJV | Pilot plant completed.
| |
1996 | Drilling | SCJV | 11 holes drilled at and around Texaco by ASARCO (SC-65 to SC-74) | |
1996 | In situ Cu Mining Research Project | USBR-SCJV | Mining test started In February.
| |
1997 | Drilling | SCJV | Four holes were drilled by ASARCO at Texaco (SC-75 to SC-78) | |
1997 | In situ Cu Mining Research Project | USBR-SCJV | Lost funding – closure started | USBR lost Congressional funding in October. Injection continued until December.
|
1998 | In situ CU Mining Research Project | USBR-SCJV | State required closure activities – final report to Bureau of Reclamation | Pumping continued until the end of February. Plant to care and maintenance. The final research report was never made public.
|
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 37 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
5.3 | Previous Reporting |
5.3.1 | Hanna 1982 |
Watts Griffis McOuat Ltd. (WGM) calculated a historical ore and mining reserve for Hanna Mining in 1982. Ore was determined from sections by calculating areas from drill hole intercepts and distance between holes, and by assigning to each area the weighted average grade of the holes on either side. If a single hole was involved, the grade of that hole prevailed.
Mining reserves were calculated using mining blocks outlined for Hanna’s mining plan 5-E and took into consideration the additional work done on geologic interpretation.
WGM recommended additional consideration be given to a more flexible method of mining such as sublevel caving.
5.3.2 | In Situ Joint Venture 1997 |
In 1986, the Bureau of Mines obtained Congressional approval and funding to study in situ Cu mining. In 1988, the Santa Cruz deposit was selected for this research project sponsored by a joint venture program between landowners ASARCO Santa Cruz Inc. and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., and the main project funder the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Field testing began in 1988, and the test wells were constructed in 1989 in a 5-point pattern with one injection well centred between four extraction wells. Salt tracer tests were conducted in 1991, permits for the use of sulphuric acid were received in 1994, and the solvent extraction-electrowinning (SX-EW) pilot plant was completed in 1995.
The in situ testing began in February 1996, but research funding was halted in October 1997 due to a change from Congress. Utilizing the carryover funds from previous years of the program, injections continued until December 1997 and pumping until mid-February 1998. At this point, the remaining fluids in the leach zone were less acidic, and metals remaining in solution were redeposited into the ore body through precipitation. A final report was not made publicly available. However, a newsletter from the project was circulated in March 1998 and noted that 35,000 lbs. of Cu were extracted.
5.3.3 | IMC 2013 |
IMC constructed a block model for the Santa Cruz South deposit, the Texaco deposit, and the Parks-Salyer deposit for Russell Mining and Minerals in 2013.
The block model for the Santa Cruz South deposit was based on 116 drill holes with 18,034 assay intervals for a total of approximately 342,338 ft (104,344 m) of drilling, in which 90.7% of the intervals were assayed for Cu. Forty percent of the drill intervals were assayed for acid soluble Cu and 5% for cyanide soluble Cu.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 38 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
The block model for the Texaco deposit was based on all Cu drilling data available as of April 5, 2013. The block model was based on 29 drill holes with 2,281 assay intervals for a total of approximately 82,696 ft (25,205 m) of drilling, in which 92.5% of the intervals were assayed for Cu. Less than 9% of the drill intervals were assayed for acid soluble Cu or cyanide soluble Cu.
The block model for the Parks-Salyer was based on seven drill holes with 7,398 ft (2,254 m) of drilling. Topography, the bottom of the conglomerate, and the top of the bedrock were all added to the model using the drill hole collars, any downhole information that existed, plus additional data for drill holes from outside the model limits. These surfaces are a rough approximation based on the limited amount of information available.
5.3.4 | Stantec-Mining 2013 |
5.3.5 | Physical Resource Engineering 2014 |
In 2014 Physical Resource Engineering completed a conceptual study, “Mining Study Exploitation of the Santa Cruz South Deposit by Undercut Caving” for Casa Grande Resources LLC.
5.4 | Historical Production |
No historical production has been carried out on the property.
5.5 | Nordmin QP Opinion |
The historical mining and processing as described above are reasonable indicators of what IVNE could expect to encounter should IVNE develop any of the exploration potential areas into an Exploration Target in the future. The reader is cautioned that the historical mineral inventories listed above vary between different sources and therefore should be considered as an indicative only.
6 | GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALIZATION AND DEPOSIT |
6.1 | Regional Geology |
Basement lithologies of Arizona consist of formations developed during the Paleoproterozoic collisional orogeny that were subsequently stitched together by anorogenic granitic plutonic suites in the Proterozoic. Basement lithologies are represented by units such as the Pinal Schist, a lithology common throughout southern Arizona, and the Oracle and Ruin anorogenic granites. Proterozoic anorogenic granitic complexes were emplaced between 1450-1350 Ma. Continental rifting in the Mesoproterozoic brought Paleo- and early Mesoproterozoic granitic complexes to the surface where they were subsequently buried beneath rocks of Apache Group, which represents a very shallow intracontinental basin. Around 1100 Ma, these rocks were intruded by Diabase dykes and sills related to the break-up of the Rodinia supercontinent.
Throughout the Paleozoic, Arizona was located within a craton with major disconformities in the stratigraphy interpreted to represent relative sea level changes. By the Triassic, a subduction zone was established along the continental margin of Pangea with a magmatic arc that lay largely to the west of Arizona. A sinistral convergence is generally assumed at the continental plate margin. This convergence geometry suggests the potential for arc parallel transtensional or transpressional deformation in the back arc. The magmatic arc led to the deposition of material into the Arizona continental interior. By the Middle Jurassic, the magmatic arc had been established through Arizona. The arc was low standing as an eolian dune field from the continental interior was blown into the basins and interbedded with the felsic volcanic rocks. At this time, the arc generally is considered to have been under transtension with a major sinistral strike-slip fault, the Mojave – Sonora Megashear, cutting across northern Mexico and linking with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015; Anderson, 2015).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 39 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
By the Late Jurassic Period and into the Early Cretaceous Period, the Santa Cruz Project area was located on the shoulder of a major rift, the Bisbee basin, which is a failed arm of the rift that created the Gulf of Mexico. By the end of the Early Cretaceous Period, the area lay in a back arc setting that was gradually being eroded. Material from this erosion was being shed to the northeast. By the Late Cretaceous Period (approximately 80 Ma), the magmatic arc had migrated into Arizona. Shortening is contemporaneous with diachronous magmatism within the same location (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015).
Cessation of magmatic activity in the Paleocene Period marked the onset of erosion of the uplifted arc, which lay southwest of the Colorado Plateau. Eocene sequences deposited from the Transition Zone, which separates the Colorado Plateau from the Basin and Range extended terrane, onto the Colorado Plateau represent the products of the exhumation of the arc.
6.2 | Metallogenic Setting |
The Santa Cruz Project lies along a northwest to southeast trending, approximately 600 km long porphyry Cu belt that includes many productive Cu deposits such as Mineral Park, Bagdad, Resolution, Miami-Globe, San Manuel-Kalamazoo, Ray, Morenci, and the neighbouring Sacaton (Figure 6-1). These deposits lie within the Basin and Range province that covers most of the southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. This region is characterized by linear mountain chains separated by broad flat valleys that are the result of the tectonic extension during the mid-Cenozoic Period (Figure 6-2).
The Cu porphyry deposits within this trend are the genetic product of igneous activity during the Laramide orogeny (approximately 80 Ma to 50 Ma) when northeast-directed subduction of the Farallon Plate beneath the North American plate produced a northwest-southeast-striking magmatic arc (Leveille and Stegen, 2012) and associated porphyry Cu systems (Figure 6-1). Laramide porphyry systems in the immediate vicinity of the Santa Cruz Project define a southwest to northeast linear array orthogonal to the trend of the magmatic arc environment.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 40 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-1: Regional geology of Cu porphyry belt and map of location of Cu porphyry deposits hosted in the area
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 41 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-2: Map of structures related to extension during the mid-Cenozoic
During the tectonic extension of the mid-Cenozoic Period, the Laramide arc and related porphyry Cu systems were variably dismembered, tilted, and buried beneath basin alluvium and conglomeratic deposits that fill the Casa Grande Valley. Prior to concealment undercover, many of the Laramide porphyry systems of Arizona experienced supergene enrichment events that make them such economically significant deposits (Figure 6-3).
Supergene alunite from the Sacaton porphyry Cu deposit was K-Ar dated at 41 Ma (Cook, 1994). At the Santa Cruz Project, evidence for multiple cycles of supergene enrichment is represented by multiple chalcocite and oxide-Cu “blankets” that were developed oblique to each other (Figure 6-4) as a result of rotation and subsequent overprinting by new supergene blankets. Cook (1994) has shown that enrichment happened throughout the Tertiary and ceased with the deposition of overlying sedimentary packages, comprised predominantly of conglomerates, which changed the hydrology in the vicinity of the deposit(s). The earliest supergene enrichment is interpreted to have occurred in the Eocene epoch (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 42 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-3: Generalized cross-section through well-developed supergene enrichment profile showing geochemical stratigraphy Leached capping environment and metals mobility engendered through oxidative destruction of pyrite and Cu ore sulphides.Pyrite contributes four moles of H+(aq) per mole of pyrite, with Fe++(aq) and sulphate; ferrous iron oxidizes rapidly to H+(aq) and Fe+++(aq), the latter serving as a strong oxidizer for Cu sulphides. Cu sulphides produce nominal to no low pH solutions upon weathering. Lateral transport of iron and Cu produces ferricretes of hematite > goethite and exotic Cu as silicates, sulphates, halides, and Cu++ adsorbed onto goethite and manganese oxides. Oxidation along sheeted fractures and faults deepens the topographic base of all supergene stratigraphic intervals, as do supergene solutions migrating through phyllic and argillic-altered host rocks. Reactive host rocks shown on the margins of the figure attenuate Cu transport and produce erratic, fracture-controlled in situ development of Cu oxides; such in situ development of Cu oxides would be characteristic of K-silicate–altered (potassic) rock volumes. For scale, note that any of the three supergene-related geochemical zones may be variably developed such that thicknesses may range from nominal to several hundred metres as a function of the maturity of the weathering profile. Abbreviations: bn = bornite, cp = chalcopyrite, HW = hanging wall, mt = magnetite, py = pyrite (Chávez, 2021)
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 43 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-4: Santa Cruz property mineralization cross-section (ASARCO, 1978)
6.3 | Santa Cruz Project Geology |
The Santa Cruz system (comprising Santa Cruz, Sacaton, Texaco and Parks-Salyer areas); (Figure 6-5) represent portions of one or more large porphyry Cu systems that have experienced supergene enrichment, dismemberment, and displacement during Tertiary extensional faulting.
The geology of the area is dominated by the 1450 Ma to 1350 Ma anorogenic Oracle Granite. Proterozoic aged (approximately 1100 Ma) diabase sills, and rare dykes, are also known from historic drilling and have a shallow dip to the west (25°/005°) that is interpreted to reflect rotation during Basin and Range extensional tectonics. The Diabase dykes are associated with discrete local increases in Cu grades attributable to rheological and geochemical contrasts with the more felsic Oracle host rocks.
At the Santa Cruz Project, porphyry-style mineralization is attributed to Laramide-aged (approximately 80 Ma to 50 Ma) magmatism characterized by biotite-quartz-feldspar-phyric granodiorite and quartz monzonite porphyry dykes that are interpreted to have shallow dips variably to the west. Sometime after emplacement, the Laramide dykes and the associated porphyry-style mineralized system experienced uplift, erosion, dismemberment, tilting, and supergene enrichment that continued until the system was buried under syn-extensional basin filling conglomerates that sealed off the system during Basin and Range formation.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 44 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-5: Cross-section of the Santa Cruz system (Vikre et al.2014)
Directly overlying the erosional surface of crystalline basement rocks is a series of sedimentary and volcanic units consisting predominantly of syn-extensional conglomerates (dipping as much as 50°), and andesitic, latitic, and alkali basalts associated with dykes, sills, flows, and three diatremes (Vikre et al., 2014). These units have all been intersected in drilling at the Santa Cruz Project (Figure 6-6). Some tephra deposits related to the diatremes are interbedded with a moderately sorted pebble conglomerate interpreted by Vikre et al. (2014) as being part of the basal Whitetail formation dated to approximately 40 Ma to 28 Ma (Banks et al., 1972; Cummings, 1982; Scarborough, 1989). The diatremes are similar in age and include maar and tephra variably deposited above the earliest syn-extensional conglomerates as well as directly onto the Oracle-Laramide erosional surface.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 45 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-6: Plan map of the diatreme pipes, maar and tephra deposits at the Santa Cruz Project (Vikre et al.2014)
These diatreme facies are buried beneath a 200 m to 900 m sequence of basin fill deposits that include well consolidated conglomerates (tentatively correlated with the Whitetail formation) and younger variably consolidated conglomerates interpreted to be equivalent to the Gila Group. These basin filling sediments predominantly composed of conglomeritic sequences cover the entire Santa Cruz Project area. Historic field mapping outside of the Santa Cruz Project subdivided outcropping conglomerate units into the Sacaton conglomerate, Burgess Peak conglomerate, and Gas line conglomerate.
Quaternary alluvium consisting of poorly sorted silt and sand is spread out across the Casa Grande valley, reaching up to 70 m thick near the Santa Cruz River and displays a conformable relationship with underlying Gila Group conglomerates. Dissected alluvial fans flank the Tabletop mountains to the southwest and are largely comprised of volcanic rubble. Figure 6-7 shows a simplified stratigraphic column of the geologic units and mineralization.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 46 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-7: Simplified stratigraphic section of the Santa Cruz Project (IVNE documents)
6.3.1 | Geologic Units |
Detailed descriptions of the dominant lithologies present in the Santa Cruz Project area are as follows:
Proterozoic
· | Pinal Schist: Quartz-sericite schist with banded injection gneiss, granitic gneiss, and aplite. The Pinal is a common basement rock of southeastern Arizona, possessing many of the characteristics of a subduction complex associated with the Paleoproterozoic (1.7 Gz to 1.64 Ga) Mazatzal volcanic arc. The Pinal Schist is well exposed throughout southern Arizona but is known in the area only from deep drilling near Sacaton and Parks-Salyer areas that intersected Pinal Schist beneath an interpreted sub-horizontal listric fault. |
· | Oracle Granite: There are two dominant phases identified from historic drilling. One is a coarse-grained granite with biotite and has noted similarities with the Mineral Butte Granite at Blackwater (report by A.G. Blucher) and a second coarse-grained megacrystic quartz monzonite with decrease biotite. In the surrounding mapped quadrangle, the Oracle Granite is prevailingly a coarse-grained hypidiomorphic biotite granite with large pink or salmon-coloured orthoclase feldspars 32 mm to 38 mm across that gives rock a pink or gray mottled appearance on fresh surfaces. Groundmass composed of uniformly sized, 5 mm, grains of clear white feldspar and glassy quartz with greenish-black masses of biotite and magnetite. Composition suggests that rock should be classed as quartz monzonite rather than granite. Surface exposures of light-buff colour. Age is interpreted to be 1450 Ma to 1350 Ma (Tosdal and Wooden, 2015). Alteration minerals are dominated by secondary orthoclase and sericite. |
· | Proterozoic Diabase: Holocrystalline, medium- to coarse-grained ophitic to subophitic textures with plagioclase and clinopyroxene (augite) as the dominant primary phases. Magnetite, oligoclase, sulphide (pyrite and chacopyrite) mineralization are reported as minor phases within the diabase. The diabase is interpreted as belonging to the Mid-Proterozoic (1090 Ma) diabase province exposed throughout much of central Arizona, and is considered to be a ubiquitous feature of the Precambrian geology of central and western Arizona and southeastern California (Harlan, 1993). These diabase intrusions were dominantly emplaced as horizontal to sub-horizontal sills, though rare dykes are recognized. These dykes are associated with local discrete increases in observed hypogene sulphide mineralization – interpreted as being a more reactive and receptive host rock for hydrothermal fluid deposition of sulphide mineralization. Historic petrographic thin section analysis indicates diabase is dominantly associated with hydrothermal biotite and epidote. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 47 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Laramide Igneous Rocks
· | Laramide Porphyry: Quartz-biotite-feldspar-phyric porphyritic dykes at the Santa Cruz Project are associated with primary hypogene mineralization and alteration. The porphyry has a quartz monzonite composition (35% quartz, 6% biotite, 29% feldspar, 30% K-feldspar, and plagioclase) with 40% phenocrysts averaging 1.5 mm and 60% aplitic to aphanitic groundmass. Quartz phenocrysts are less than 10 mm, sub-spherical, and comprise approximately 25% of the phenocrysts. Biotite makes up 15% of the phenocrysts and are less than 5 mm. Subhedral plagioclase phenocrysts, 60%, are generally less than 7 mm. There are at least two different mineralizing phases of Laramide-aged porphyritic intrusion at Santa Cruz. One porphyry contains quartz phenocrysts <5% by volume, and is generally associated with increased biotite phenocrysts as well as increased biotite content in the groundmass, typically giving this unit a darker colour. The other variant contains more quartz phenocrysts (>5%), and is often described as being more siliceous and lighter in colour. Historic petrographic reporting indicates the overall microscopic characteristics and model mineral abundances are broadly equivalent. Late biotite-quartz feldspar monzonite porphyry dykes intersected in SC-041 and SC-043 clearly cross-cut sulphide mineralization, but appear very similar to pre-mineral and mineralizing dykes and hosts strong biotite-orthoclase alteration interpreted as indicating a late emplacement but prior to cessation of hydrothermal activity. The late biotite-quartz feldspar monzonite porphyry is composed of 15% biotite, 25% K-feldspar, 40% plagioclase and 20% quartz with 15% phenocrysts consisting of 20% biotite, 70% plagioclase and 10% quartz in an aphanitic 15% biotite, 30% K-feldspar, 35% plagioclase, 20% and quartz groundmass with 0.06 mm average crystal size. Alteration minerals in mineralized Laramide dykes are dominated by hydrothermal biotite, sericite, and lesser orthoclase feldspar. K-Ar age dating reported in Balla (1972) returned 65 Ma to 64 Ma ranges for phyllic alteration of Oracle Granite and 70.53 Ma from Ar-Ar in biotite phenocrysts within a biotite-quartzfeldspar-phyric porphyry in central fault block at Sacaton. |
Tertiary
· | Syn-extensional Conglomerates: These conglomerates show wide variation in thickness, and characteristics across the property. They are mainly composed of locally derived material, dominant clasts have been identified as originating from the Oracle Granite, Pinal Schist, Laramide Porphyry, and diabase. They have been deposited directly atop the erosional surface of the previously described lithological units. The oldest basal conglomerates have been tentatively correlated with the Whitetail Conglomerate that has an age range of approximately 41 Ma to 28 Ma (Vikre et al., 2014) |
· | Diatremes and Associated Mafic Volcanics: Three diatremes are recognized on the property (Vikre et al., 2014) and consist of intrusive heterolithic breccias and eruptive deposits including tephras (tuff rungs) and tuffaceous sediments (maar-fil deposits) that border and fill diatreme vents respectively, and lie on the mid-Tertiary erosion surface of Middle Proterozoic granite and Laramide porphyry, which compose most xenoliths in pipes and are the host rocks of the system. Some igneous xenoliths in the pipes contain bornite-chalcopyrite-covellite assemblages with hypogene grades >1 wt % Cu, 0.34 g/t Au, 15.6 g/t Ag, and small amounts of Mo (<0.01 wt %), indicating the phreatomagmatic event has partially dissected and sampled mineralization at depth. The phreatomagmatic diatreme events are interpreted to be related to Tertiary igneous activity recognized outside of the project area to the south and west that consist of andesitic, latitic, and basaltic flows that are often tilted and faulted where exposed. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 48 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
· | Conglomerates: The basin fill conglomerates are considered to be broadly corelative with the Gila Conglomerate, recognized throughout much of Southwestern Arizona. In the Santa Cruz Project area, the conglomerates are up to 900 m thick and are generally dominated by clasts of Oracle Granite, Pinal Schist and mafic volcanics sourced proximally, and are variably tilted at depth and structurally offset by numerous normal faults associated with Basin and Range extension. Historical mapping reports the Sacaton conglomerate is known near the Sacaton deposit to the northeast of the Santa Cruz deposit and consists of well consolidated, unsorted fanglomerate with indurrated Precambrian granite, schist, and gneissic boulders and grains. Burgess Peak conglomerate is exposed just northwest of Casa Grande and is composed of hard granite-boulder fanglomerate with hematite cement. The Gas Line conglomerate outcrops to the east of the Sacaton deposit, and consists of poorly consolidated fanglomerate and sandy stream and clay deposits that exited north and south into the valley and is considered an important component in the Casa Grande aquifer. Historic reporting by ASARCO describes three generalized units from historic drilling in the Santa Cruz Project area: |
o | Unit I is the lowermost conglomerate and is characterized by a massively bedded, well consolidated, poorly sorted, conglomerate with 30% to 70% clasts comprised of 70% to 100% altered leached capping and 0% to 30% granite, porphyry and gneiss in a heavily iron-stained sand and silt-sized matrix (Kreis, 1978). This unit closely resembles structureless fault gouge and breccia capping in general appearance. |
o | Unit II lies both above Unit 1 and directly upon bedrock and is characterized by well consolidated, poorly sorted, conglomerate with locally developed siltstone and sandstone beds dipping 30° to 50° (to core axis in vertical holes – no azimuth constrained historically), and massive conglomerate with approximately 60% clasts comprised of 90% to 100% gneiss and lesser volcanic agglomerate clasts with <10% granite, porphyry, and leached capping material supported by a brown to locally grey-coloured clay-sand matrix. |
o | Upper Unit conglomerates are reported from several historic holes (SC-45, SC-44, SC-41, SC-28, and SC-23) and are described as calcite-cement-supported indurated conglomerates with 45% clasts dominated by 60% fresh to propylitically altered granitic rocks, 25% propylitically altered porphyry and 15% unmineralized clasts in a sand to clay-sized matrix that ranges from brown to grey to locally brownish-red in colour. This lithology occurs in sedimentary contact between Unit I and Unit II in faulted contact with bedrock. |
· | Quaternary Alluvium: The alluvium is comprised of poorly consolidated silt and sand and minor volcaniclastic material from nearby weathering hills and is spread out across the Casa Grande valley, reaching a maximum thickness of around 80 m (approximately 262 ft) near the Santa Cruz River. It appears to have a gradational conformable contact with underlying conglomerates. |
6.4 | Property Mineralization |
Deep drilling through cover has delineated a 10 km by 2.5 km corridor trending from the Santa Cruz deposit in the southwest to the Sacaton deposit in the northeast, which contains basement rocks that host hypogene porphyry-style alteration and mineralization with secondary supergene enriched Cu mineralization relating to the oxidation of Laramide age porphyry mineralization of the Santa Cruz system. The Santa Cruz Project covers the southwest 5.5 km by 2.5 km of that corridor, encompassing the Santa Cruz deposit and Texaco target.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 49 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Project is generally divided into three main groups:
1. | Primary hypogene sulphide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, pyrite, molybdenite, and minor bornite, and covellite hosted within sulphide and quartz-sulphide stringers, veinlets, veins, vein breccias, and breccias as well as fine to coarse disseminations within vein envelopes (dominantly replacing mafic minerals biotite and hornblende) associated with hydrothermal porphyry-style mineralization and alteration related to Laramide-aged quartz-biotite-feldspar-phyric dykes (65 Ma to 64 Ma from K-Ar; Balla, 1972). Hypogene mineralization appears concentrated around one or more intrusive centres that have been subsequently dismembered and buried during Basin and Range extension. Hypogene mineralization has been intersected in drilling to depths of over 1,200 m. Rock types hosting hypogene mineralization in and about the Santa Cruz deposit are comprised of 82% Precambrian granite (locally known as Oracle Granite), 15% Laramide biotite-quartz-feldspar porphyry dykes (quartz monzonite to granodiorite compositions), and 3% Precambrian Diabase dykes and other rock types. |
2. | Secondary supergene sulphide mineralization is comprised of chalcocite (with accessory chalcopyrite-pyrite that was incompletely replaced by chalcocite, as well as djurleite, and digenite identified in historic XRD analyses). Supergene mineralization was originally developed as sub-horizontal domains (i.e., “chalcocite blankets”) within the phreatic zone (below paleo water table) as a result of Cu being remobilized by acidic groundwater that leached Cu from the overlying oxidizing hypogene sulphide environment. The Cu was then subsequently transported through the vadose zone (above the paleo water table), where it was redeposited within the phreatic zone as chalcocite that dominantly replaces iron sulphide minerals (i.e., pyrite-chalcopyrite). As uplift and erosion occurred, this process was repeated several times, resulting in multiple chalcocite horizons being developed over geologic time. Basin and Range tectonic extension then exposed these horizons to subsequent leaching and oxidization (hematite replacing chalcocite) and structural modification by faulting that rotated, truncated, offset, and displaced domains of supergene sulphide mineralization. |
3. | Supergene enriched Cu mineralization, referred to as “oxide mineralization” is dominated by chrysocolla (Cu-oxide) and atacamite (Cu-chloride) with subordinate brochantite, dioptase, tenorite, cuprite, Cu wad, and native Cu, and as Cu-bearing montmorillonite. Cu oxide mineralization is generally developed at the interface between the leached capping and chalcocite zones, as well as being irregularly distributed within structures and in the overlying conglomerates, where they are present as exogenous, or “exotic” Cu occurrences (this includes Cu-oxide cemented paleo-gravels/conglomerates as well as remobilized clasts of weathered Cu-oxide mineralization). At the Santa Cruz deposit atacamite and chrysocolla mineralization exhibit a two-fold geometry, with a relatively steep northeast-dipping, and a shallow southwest-dipping horizon of mineralization with distinct zonation of chrysocolla overlying a zone of chrysocolla and atacamite, overlying a zone of atacamite that in turn overlies the secondary supergene chalcocite mineralization described above (Figure 6-4). Poorly crystalline chrysocolla was identified and studied by previous operators, Hanna-Getty, who noted an intimate association (and possibly intergrown relationship) with Cu-bearing montmorillonite. The poor crystallinity, exceptionally fine-grain size, intimate intergrowths, and silicate composition made the chrysocolla and Cu-bearing montmorillonite difficult to recover (Watts et al., 1982). |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 50 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
6.4.1 | Hypogene Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Deposit |
Hypogene mineralization at the Santa Cruz deposit is distributed within an area approximately 2 km by 2 km and has been intersected in drilling from the bedrock interface at 300 m depth to over 1,200 m depth and exhibits potential to be open in all directions. Lithologies hosting hypogene mineralization in and about the Santa Cruz deposit are comprised of 82% Precambrian Oracle Granite, 15% Laramide porphyry dykes, and 3% Precambrian Diabase dykes and other rock types. Historic operators report a NE striking fault interpreted to cut-off mineralization to the SE. However, the evidence is equivocal, and the complicated paleotopographic and structural configuration are not altogether understood. Early sub-horizontal D1 faults that offset mineralization are recognized but do not appear to completely close it off, but rather place relatively weaker mineralization (i.e., higher pyrite to chalcopyrite ratio mineralization) in structural contact with more robust mineralization (chalcopyrite greater than pyrite).
Primary hypogene sulphide mineralization consists of chalcopyrite, pyrite, molybdenite, and minor bornite and covellite hosted within sulphide and quartz-sulphide stringers, veinlets, veins, vein breccias, and breccias as well as fine to coarse disseminations within vein envelopes (dominantly replacing mafic minerals biotite and hornblende) associated with hydrothermal porphyry-style mineralization and alteration related to Laramide-aged quartz-biotite-feldspar-phyric dykes (65 Ma to 64 Ma from K-Ar; Balla, 1972).
Minor gold (Au) and silver (Ag) were noted in historic flotation concentrates from the Casa Grande West deposit (Santa Cruz South; Watts et al., 1982). In general, Au, and Ag values range from 0.03 g/t to 0.3 g/t, with a single notable outlier from historic hole CG-031 that intersected 3.05 m of 307.9 g/t Au at 740.67 m depth in Oracle Granite. Where Au occurs as native flakes associated with quartz, orthoclase, analcime, clay, hematite, and mica. Trace amounts of Ag occur in solid solution within chalcocite and as an Ag selenide (estimated 60% Ag, 40% selenium) associated with chalcocite as evidenced by x-ray diffraction pattern analyses from historic reports.
Historic operators report several local centres of alteration-mineralization that exhibit distinct mineralogical and textural zonation. ASARCO outline two discrete centres of mineralization near historic drill holes SC-004 and SC-019 at their Santa Cruz North deposit. These centres of mineralization were present with inner chalcopyrite-molybdenite mineralization associated with orthoclase-biotite-sericite alteration assemblages that grade outward into pyrite-chalcopyrite mineralization associated with sericite-quartz alteration assemblages. Historic operators Hanna-Getty reported pyrite-chalcopyrite ratios that drop from 5:1, down to 3:1, with discrete domains of 1:1 near the centre of the historic Casa Grande West (Santa Cruz South) deposit. This coincides with the area with the most bornite noted in historic logs (centred on historic drill hole CG-027) and likely reflects an additional discrete locus for mineralization apart from the two centres identified and described by ASARCO nearly 2 km to the north.
Three diatremes are recognized on the property (Vikre et al., 2014; Figure 6-6), which consist of intrusive heterolithic breccias, eruptive deposits, including tephras (tuff rungs), and tuffaceous sediments (maar-fill deposits). All border and fill diatreme vents, respectively, and lie on the mid-Tertiary erosional surface of Middle Proterozoic granite and Laramide porphyry. Some igneous xenoliths in the pipes contain bornite-chalcopyrite-covellite assemblages with hypogene grades indicating the phreatomagmatic event has partially dissected and sampled mineralization at depth that has not been intersected in drilling to date. The phreatomagmatic diatreme events are interpreted to be related to Tertiary igneous activity recognized outside of the project area to the south and west that consist of andesitic, latitic, and basaltic flows that are often tilted and faulted where exposed.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 51 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
6.4.2 | Supergene Mineralization at the Santa Cruz Deposit |
Prior to the burial of the Santa Cruz deposit by post-mineral cover, hypogene sulphide mineralization near the paleo ground surface was subjected to multiple cycles of oxidation and enrichment. This resulted in the locally abundant atacamite, chrysocolla, and chalcocite mineralization that form a supergene zone with complex geometries that is up to 600 m thick in vertical drill holes (Figure 6-4). Drilling to date has delineated a thick domain of supergene Cu mineralization (averaging approximately 200 m in thickness) contiguous over an area approximately 2,000 m (NNW-SSE) by 800 m (SW-NE) within the Santa Cruz deposit area. Supergene mineralization is generally subdivided into supergene sulphide (chalcocite) and Cu-oxide mineralization, with relatively minor quantities of exotic Cu mineralization. The exotic Cu mineralization is dominantly hosted in the overlying clastic and volcanic rocks at the Santa Cruz deposit. Supergene mineralization at the Santa Cruz Project reflects a mature, long lived supergene system (chalcocite replacing pyrite) with a well-developed supergene stratigraphy consisting of distinctly zoned mineralization with chrysocolla overlying chrysocolla-atacamite, overlying atacamite, overlying chalcocite. There is also abundant evidence for post rotational development of multiple supergene enrichment horizons as illustrated in historic Figure 6-4 that shows two or more distinct supergene sulphide (chalcocite) and oxide horizons exhibiting oblique configurations, with one set dipping shallowly to the southwest (interpreted as a younger overprint) and a second set dipping more steeply to the northeast. K-Ar age dating by Cook (1994) on supergene alunite returned an age of approximately 41 Ma. During the Tertiary (likely no later than 15 Ma), the rapid burial of the Santa Cruz deposit led to the cessation of supergene enrichment processes and subsequently interred the deposit(s) under 200 m to 900 m of post-mineral cover comprising the valley fill conglomerate units.
6.4.3 | Hypogene Mineralization at the Texaco Deposit |
At Texaco deposit, hypogene mineralization has been intersected in drilling within a 2 km by 1 km zone prevalent between 400 m and 110 m depth; however, the hypogene system has not been systematically tested and remains open in all directions. Hypogene mineral assemblages consist of chalcopyrite, pyrite, and molybdenite hosted within sulphide and quartz-sulphide stringers, veinlets, veins, vein breccias, and breccias, as well as fine to coarse disseminations within vein envelopes (dominantly replacing mafic minerals biotite and hornblende). Hypogene mineralization is related to Laramide-aged quartz-biotite-feldspar-phyric dykes (65 Ma to 64 Ma from K-Ar; Balla, 1972). At the Texaco deposit, these sulphide minerals have been historically interpreted to exhibit a distinct zoning pattern, with a core zone of chalcopyrite-molybdenite, a chalcopyrite zone, and a pyrite zone (Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-9). The core and chalcopyrite zone host rocks are altered by biotite-orthoclase-sericite. Host rocks in the outer chalcopyrite zone and pyrite zone are altered by quartz-sericite (Kreis, 1978).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 52 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-8: Plan map of simplified mineralization and alteration zonation at the Texaco deposit (Kreis, 1978)
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 53 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-9: Historic cross-section of mineralization and alteration zonation at the Texaco deposit (Kreis, 1978)
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 54 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
6.4.4 | Supergene Mineralization at the Texaco Deposit |
Drilling by ASARCO at Texaco deposit delineated an approximately 100 m thick horizon of supergene Cu mineralization developed over 2000 m (NE-SW) by 1,000 m that remains open in all directions. The supergene mineralization at Texaco consists of a similar geochemical stratigraphy to that observed at the Santa Cruz deposit. The supergene mineralization contains a well-developed leached cap up to 300 m thick with abundant limonite consisting of hematite>goethite and minor jarosite. The limonite overlies a chalcocite enrichment blanket approximately 100 m thick, displaying evidence of minor oxidation at the contact in the form of chalcocite partially replaced by hematite-goethite. However, supergene mineralization at Texaco contains much less Cu-oxide and Cu-chloride mineralization compared to the Santa Cruz deposit. Brochantite was also noted as the dominant Cu-oxide phase in historic hole SC-23, where it is replacing chalcocite (Kreis, 1978). Chalcocite mineralization was historically interpreted by previous operators as having been developed in an originally thick sub-horizontal blanket and subsequently thinned due to faulting and extension (Figure 6-4). Observations of chalcocite mineralization with increased grades at the upper contact with the leached cap and a gradational decrease in mineralization with depth support an alternate hypothesis that the chalcocite blanket has not been rotated and offset to the degree that Figure 6-4 represents.
6.5 | Alteration |
Alteration at the Santa Cruz deposit is dominated by 1) hypogene alteration assemblages related to Laramide age hydrothermal activity consisting predominantly of quartz, sericite, orthoclase (potassium feldspar), biotite, chlorite, and undivided clay group minerals with rare subordinate phases epidote, albite, tremolite, and kaolinite; and 2) supergene alteration relating to the weathering and oxidation of primary hypogene sulphides in the late cretaceous through to Tertiary time with clay and sericite alteration of primary and secondary biotite with minor sericitization, clay (kaolinite, montmorillonite and rare alunite) and rare analcime alteration of relict plagioclase, though hypogene replacement of plagioclase by sericite and orthoclase reduce the potential reactivity of relict feldspars.
6.5.1 | Hypogene Alteration at the Santa Cruz Deposit |
The spatial distribution of alteration assemblages at the Santa Cruz deposit is complicated by post emplacement faulting and rotation. However, historic operators report several local centres of alteration-mineralization that exhibit distinct mineralogical and textural zonation. ASARCO identified two discrete centres of mineralization around SC-004 and SC-019, a chalcopyrite-molybdenite mineralization centre associated with orthoclase-biotite-sericite alteration assemblages that grade outward into pyrite-chalcopyrite mineralization associated with sericite-quartz alteration assemblages. Historic operator Hanna-Getty reports pyrite-chalcopyrite ratios that drop from 5:1, down to 3:1, with discrete domains of 1:1 near the centre of the historic Casa Grande West deposit. This coincides with the area of greatest bornite abundance noted in historic logs (centred on historic drill hole CG-027) and likely reflects an additional discrete locus for mineralization apart from the two centres identified by ASARCO nearly 2 km to the north. Observations from ongoing drill operations have identified the presence of pale-green sericite (PGS) in close association with hypogene sulphide-bearing vein selvedges and envelopes and are interpreted to be analogous to similar PGS-Sulphide vein relationships observed and reported at the Butte deposit, Montana.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 55 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
6.5.2 | Supergene Alteration at the Santa Cruz Deposit |
Historic operators reported an absence of alunite-supergene silica, and dominant kaolinite that they interpreted as indicating a leached capping environment with modest oxidizing potential within a relatively low sulphide system. However, ongoing analyses utilizing a TerraSpec Halo handheld spectrometer have identified both supergene alunite as well as likely silica in the leached capping environment, potentially indicating a relatively robust oxidizing potential with low pH fluid generation. This is further supported by the presence of near complete chalcocite replacement of pyrite, which directly indicates cupric ion strength and reflects a longstanding supergene process (Chávez, 2021). Limonites, dominantly present as exogenous hematite>goethite>jarosite, are indigenous and proximally transported and occur with abundant hematite staining of feldspars and as thick accumulations on fractures. Hematite in the leached capping environment is also noted to occur as hematite after chalcocite pseudomorphing pyrite in cellular boxworks that exhibit a deep maroon colour referred to as “Live hematite,” in addition to botryoidal hematite observed in cavities. Locally, limonitic mixtures of hematite-goethite, and hematite-jarosite form as casts of subsequently leached mineral phases such as pyrite. Montmorillonite is present in the supergene environment replacing feldspars and has been noted to be Cu-bearing within the chrysocolla zone.
6.5.3 | Hypogene Alteration at the Texaco Deposit |
Texaco deposit, as noted by ASARCO-Freeport in their 1978 internal report, illustrates distinct zonation in the drilling at their Santa Cruz North deposit that consisted of 1) a core zone with modest Cu contents, increased local molybdenite grades and strongly developed orthoclase alteration 2) Chalcopyrite zone with host rocks that are altered dominated by biotite-orthoclase-sericite assemblages; and 3) Outer chalcopyrite and pyrite zone that is dominated by quartz-sericite (Figure 7-9).
6.5.4 | Supergene Alteration at the Texaco Deposit |
Supergene alteration within the Texaco deposit is similar to the Santa Cruz deposit. Limonites are dominantly present as hematite>goethite>jarosite and occur with abundant hematite staining of feldspars and their alteration products, as well as thick accumulations on fractures. Hematite in the leached capping environment is also noted to occur as hematite after chalcocite. This hematite is a pseudomorph of pyrite and forms in cellular boxworks that exhibit a deep maroon colour referred to as “Live hematite.” Botryoidal hematite is also observed in cavities. Locally, limonitic mixtures of hematite-goethite, and hematite-jarosite form as casts of subsequently leached mineral phases such as pyrite.
6.6 | Structural Geology |
The Santa Cruz Project lies within the Basin and Range province, within a domain that has experienced some of the greatest degrees of extensional tectonism (Figure 6-2). The Santa Cruz system (including Santa Cruz, Sacaton, Texaco, and Parks-Salyer areas) represents portions of one or more large porphyry Cu systems that have been dismembered and displaced during Tertiary extensional faulting. As such, faulting at the Santa Cruz Project is intimately associated with mineralization and the current deposit configuration in several ways.
Firstly, major deep-seated NE-SW striking basement structures that run from Colorado to Mexico (i.e., The Jemez lineament) likely controlled or constrained Laramide age intrusive emplacement and metal endowment during transpressional arc magmatism. These structures have likely been reactivated multiple times, potentially serving as transfer faults for dextral offset during Basin and Range extension. Secondly, post-mineral faulting is recognized at Santa Cruz Project, and it is evident that at least three different generations of approximately NW-SE striking normal faulting have developed during Basin and Range extension, resulting in significant rotation and offset of fault blocks with the earliest (D1) generation of faults exhibiting a sub-horizontal configuration at present. This “deck of cards” rotation and offset of faults and fault blocks during Basin and Range extension is well documented in Arizona, for example, the Yerington, Ann Mason and MacArthur deposits of Nevada (Dilles et al., 2000). These structures exhibit a principal control on the present configuration of the Santa Cruz Project.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 56 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Additionally, it is evident within the Santa Cruz deposit that post emplacement faulting has controlled and affected groundwater dynamics and the subsequent mobilization and deposition of Cu in supergene enrichment processes, as well as late intermediate argillic alteration and low temperature groundwater alteration and oxidative processes. These faults also played a key role in shaping the paleotopographic landscape prior to burial under the Valley conglomerate sequence, and the paleotopography will have had a controlling influence on the development and distribution of exotic Cu mineralization in paleodrainages that are recognized at the Santa Cruz deposit.
The Santa Cruz deposit is interpreted to be down-faulted to the west along the NW-trending, W-dipping Grande Fault, and may be offset by other faults. Post-mineralization faults have been found to displace overlying volcanic rocks and conglomerate. Heterolithic, igneous- and clastic-matrix breccias in the Middle Proterozoic and Late Cretaceous igneous bedrock and associated tuffaceous deposits are located along the contact of bedrock and basin fill deposits. The breccias and basin fill deposits, which consist of at least three diatremes, contain xenoliths, and xenocrysts from a variety of surrounding Precambrian and Late Cretaceous igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks (Vikre, 2014).
6.7 | Deposit Types |
The Santa Cruz deposit is a portion of one or more large porphyry Cu systems that have been dismembered and displaced by tertiary extensional faulting. Porphyry Cu deposits form in areas of shallow magmatism within subduction-related tectonic environments (Sillitoe, 2010). The Santa Cruz system has typical characteristics of a porphyry Cu deposit defined by Berger et al. (2008) as follows (Figure 6-10):
· | One wherein Cu-bearing sulphides are localized in a network of fracture-controlled stockwork veinlets and as disseminated grains in the adjacent altered rock matrix. |
· | Alteration and mineralization at 1 km to 4 km depth are genetically related to magma reservoirs emplaced into the shallow crust (6 km to over 8 km), predominantly intermediate to silicic in composition, in magmatic arcs above subduction zones. |
· | Intrusive rock complexes associated with porphyry Cu mineralization and alteration are predominantly in the form of upright-vertical cylindrical stocks and/or complexes of dykes. |
· | Zones of phyllic-argillic and marginal propylitic alteration overlap or surround a potassic alteration assemblage. |
· | Cu may also be introduced during overprinting phyllic-argillic alteration events. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 57 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-10: Simplified alteration and mineralization zonation model of a porphyry Cu deposit, after Lowell and Guilbert, 1970.
Hypogene (or primary) mineralization occurs as disseminations and in stockworks of veins, in hydrothermally altered, shallow intrusive complexes and their adjacent country rocks (Berger, Ayuso, Wynn, & Seal, 2008). Sulphides of the hypogene zone are dominantly chalcopyrite and pyrite, with minor bornite. The hydrothermal alteration zones and vein paragenesis of porphyry Cu deposits are well known and provide an excellent tool for advancing exploration. Schematic cross sections of the typical alteration zonation and associated minerals are presented in Figure 6-10, which were originally presented by Lowell and Guilbert (1970).
Supergene enrichment processes are a common feature of many porphyry Cu systems located in certain physiogeographical regions (semi-arid) that can result in upgrading of LG porphyry Cu primary sulphide mineralization into economically significant accumulations of supergene Cu species (Cu oxides, halides, carbonates, etc.), this is particularly important in the southwestern United States. Supergene enrichment occurs when uplift of a porphyry system to shallow depths exposes the system to surface oxidation processes leading to Cu being leached from the hypogene mineralization during weathering of sulphides (dominantly pyrite, which generates significant sulphuric acid in oxidizing conditions) and redeposits Cu below the water table as supergene Cu sulphides such as chalcocite and covellite. Above the water table, Cu-oxide minerals typically form (Figure 6-11). Figure 6-11 illustrates a schematic section through a secondary enriched porphyry Cu deposit, identifying the main mineral zones formed as an overprint from weathering of the hypogene system.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 58 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-11: Schematic representation of an exotic Cu deposit and its relative position to an exposed porphyry Cu system (Fernandez-Mote et al., 2018; modified after Münchmeyer 1996; Sillitoe 2005).
The Santa Cruz Project has a history of oxidation and leaching that resulted in the formation of enriched chalcocite horizons, and later stages of oxidation and leaching, which modified the supergene Cu mineralization by oxidizing portions of it in place and mobilizing some of the chalcocite to a greater depth (Figure 6-12). This process is associated with descending water tables and or erosion and uplift of the system, or changes in climate, or hydrogeological systematics.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 59 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 6-12: Typical Cu porphyry cross-section displaying hypogene and supergene mineralization processes and associated minerals (modified from Asmus, B., [2013])
These processes are also known to be associated with the generation of exotic Cu deposits. Exotic Cu mineralization is a complex hydrochemical process linking supergene enrichment, lateral Cu transport, and precipitation of Cu-oxide minerals in the drainage network of a porphyry Cu deposit (Mote et al., 2001). Supergene alteration primarily involves vertical solution movement, but percolation often involves a horizontal component whereby Cu-rich acidic solutions migrate laterally within the vadose zone. Depending on Eh and pH conditions, Cu may be transported through paleodrainage systems for distances of up to 8 km from the source to produce continuous Cu mineralization (Münchmeyer, 1998). These processes are incredibly complex and defining controls of mineralization can make targeting these deposits challenging.
6.8 | Nordmin QP Opinion |
The Nordmin QP is of the opinion that the structure, geology, and mineralization of the Santa Cruz Project is well understood and document by several authors over multiple decades.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 60 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
7 | EXPLORATION |
7.1 | IVNE Geophysical Exploration |
Earthfield Technology (Earthfield) specializes in depth to basement and basin architecture analyses through application of proprietary geophysical data processing technologies. Earthfield was contracted by IVNE in 2021 to evaluate historic and publicly available topographic, magnetic and gravity datasets (Figure 7-1) to delineate depth to basement, structural lineaments and domains of potential Laramide intrusive bodies and associated alteration in the Casa Grande Basin and surrounding area. Products delivered to IVNE included the reduction to the magnetic pole (RTP), RTP first vertical derivative (RTP_1VD), RTP 5 km high pass filtered (RTP_HP5), RTP 2 km high pass filtered (RTP_HP2), total magnetic intensity (TMI), Bouguer Gravity, Bouguer Gravity 20 km high pass filtered, Bouguer Gravity 10 km high pass filtered, Bouguer Gravity 5 km high pass filtered, Lineaments, Basement depth, Basement Contours (50 m) and postulated Laramide intrusive and associated alteration zones. Results and products from Earthfield analyses have been compiled and integrated into ongoing 3D modelling efforts and will be used to constrain exploration targeting and refine the geological understanding of the Santa Cruz Project area, and inform subsequent geophysical investigations.
Figure 7-1: Gravity data stations (left) and Arizona State aeromagnetic data (Earthfield report to IVNE, 2021)
In November 2021, IVNE commenced a passive seismic survey, which is designed to provide 2D profiles of the basement surface in the area overlying and surrounding the Santa Cruz Project deposits (Figure 7-2). Delineating this surface will validate regional basement modelling by Earthfield and aid future exploration programs. The survey consists of five lines with stations spaced 100 m apart, three oriented in a NE/SW orientation and two in a SW/NW orientation. The survey covers an area of 27 square kilometres with 29 line kilometres and 295 individual stations. Depth profiles from the individual stations will be stitched together to create 2D line profiles across the survey area.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 61 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-2: Proposed passive seismic survey configuration and stations showing historic mineral inventories, IVNE surface access agreements, and historic drilling
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 62 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
The survey is being carried out using Tromino Passive seismic instruments, which use natural sources as the signals and measure vertical and horizontal movement in three corresponding axis (x,y,z).
TROMINO® is a small all-in-one instrument, equipped with:
· | Three velocimetric channels |
· | Three accelerometric channels |
· | One analog channel |
· | GPS receiver |
· | built-in radio transmitter/receiver (for synchronization among different units) |
· | radio triggering system (for MASW surveys and similar) |
· | TROMINO® works in the [0.1, 1024] Hz range |
Additionally, IVNE mobilized their proprietary TyphoonTM IP-EM transmitter technology in December 2021 to conduct trial tests including 3DIP, Mise a la Masse, DHEM and DHIP methods to inform future geophysical survey designs.
7.2 | Historic Geophysical Exploration |
IVNE is also in possession of historic documents that detail historic geophysical exploration efforts and results over the Santa Cruz – Sacaton system (Table 7-1). To date, none of the original data has been located, but historic interpretations, and results remain valuable.
Table 7-1: Summary of Historic Exploration on the Santa Cruz Project and Surrounding Area
Year | Activities | Company(s) | Prospect/ Deposit |
Description | Notes |
1961 | Prospecting and discovery | ASARCO | Sacaton | ASARCO geologists Kinnison and Blucher identify Sacaton Discovery Outcrop, consisting of weak Cu-oxide mineralization on what will eventually be the margin of the Sacaton pit. | Based on Asarco's recognition that porphyry Cu deposits often have little or no associated Cu staining and on information from surrounding porphyry Cu deposits, Asarco's geologists were looking for other prospects in the area by driving and walking around. There was a faint trace of Cu-stain but not enough to have attracted previous exploration or prospecting. The outcrop was granite with a thin dyke of porphyry – both altered to quartz-sericite-clay with weak but pervasive jarosite-goethite and a few specks of hematite after chalcocite, particularly in the dyke. The outcrop was expected to have originally contained about 2% sulphides as pyrite/chalcocite/chalcopyrite. |
1961 | Geophysical Surveying | ASARCO | Sacaton | ASARCO Geophysical Dept. report. | Geophysical survey results were used to improve the interpretations of bedrock depth in the Sacaton area. |
1967 | Ground IP geophysics | ASARCO | 1967 Internal report indicates eight holes were drilled over a large 13.2 mv/v IP anomaly around 15 miles SW of Sacaton. | None of the drill holes intersected primary sulphides, and the chargeability response was interpreted to have been caused by water-saturated clays in the overlying conglomerate. | |
1988-1991 | Borehole Geophysics |
SCJV
|
Santa Cruz | Downhole geophysical data was collected during the in situ leach test program. | During the SCJV In Situ leach tests (approximately 1988-1991), an undisclosed number of holes were subjected to downhole/borehole geophysical surveying that implemented the collection of caliper, density, resistivity, gamma-ray spectrometer, neutron activation spectrometry, dipmeter, sonic waveform, IP, and magnetic susceptibility data collection methods. |
1988 | In situ Cu Mining Research Project | USBR, SCJV (ASARCO Santa Cruz Inc., and Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.) | Santa Cruz | Santa Cruz selected over other deposits for research site; Field testing begins. | The Santa Cruz deposit was 1,250 ft to 3,200 ft below the surface and contains 1.0 billion tons of potentially leachable grading 0.55% total Cu. The joint venture owns 7,000 surface acres, with the Cu mineralization under approximately 250 acres. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 63 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Historic ASARCO documents detail multiple IP surveys over the Sacaton and Santa Cruz Deposits, as well as the historic Santa Rosa Prospect (located southwest of Santa Cruz deposit along the same trend as Sacaton). Historic IP survey reports indicate that extraneous responses in IP surveys at Sacaton and Santa Cruz resulted from groundwater present in the valley fill conglomerates (i.e., W.G. Farley “ASARCO, 1967, Induced Polarization Pinal County” report documents IP response correlating with the water table at Santa Cruz and Sacaton, within the overlying gravels, and well above the basement contact). In 1991, the ASARCO-Hanna-Getty-Bureau of Mines joint venture contracted Zonge Geophysical to implement Controlled Source Audio-frequency Magnetotelluric (CSAMT) tests evaluating the potential to use the application to non-invasively monitor in situ leachate plume activity during in situ leach tests. Results from phase one and two testing from May 1990 through June 1991 were considered promising for tracking leachate detectability with salt doping/tracing. Historic airborne and ground magnetic interpretations are also available, though arguably of lesser value than modern magnetic datasets available (Figure 7-3).
Figure 7-3: ASARCO map illustrating interpreted ground and aeromagnetic data detailed in historic report “Recommended Drilling Santa Cruz Project,” M.A.970 Pinal County, Arizona, August 21, 1964, by W.E. Saegart
7.3 | Historical Data Compilation |
IVNE has obtained the geological information in the form of historical maps, sections, drill reports, drill logs and assay result reports. As a significant component of the exploration program the historical drill logs were interpreted and used to create a 3D (Leapfrog Geo™) geologic model of the Santa Cruz Project. Three-dimensional geological interpretations were derived from historical drill logs and 2D sections containing geologic interpretations. The drill core data was compiled by IVNE geologists.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 64 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
The drilling within the Project area can be separated into CG and SC drilling, which were completed by different companies (Hanna Getty and ASARCO, respectively). The CG region was comprised of 122 holes from CG-001 to CG-122 with a total of 103,407 m drilled. A plan view map of collar locations can be viewed in Figure 7-4 and a summary is provided in Table 7-2. Twenty-nine original drill cross-sections from 1978 to 1980 covering 92 holes were digitized. Information collected included elevation, total and rotary depths, basic lithology, assays from the three most predominant Cu minerals (total Cu, acid soluble Cu and molybdenum), and survey depth. The archived data was originally logged using a series of numerical codes documented in the Casa Grande Copper Company Ore Reserves Study for the Hanna Mining Company (Watts Griffis McOuat, 1982).
Figure 7-4 Plan map of CG drill hole collars as blue dots
The SC series of drill holes was comprised of 80 drill holes from SC-001 to SC-078 with a total of 62,754 m drilled. A plan view map of collar locations can be viewed in Figure 7-5 and a summary is provided in Table 7-2. The archived data was originally logged using a series of numerical codes documented in the Casa Grande Copper Company Ore Reserves Study for the Hanna Mining Company (Watts Griffis McOuat, 1982).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 65 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-5 Plan map of SC drill hole collars as red dots
Table 7-2 Summary of Available Data by Region
Dataset Region | Total | ||
CG | SC | ||
Total number of holes | 122 | 80 | 202 |
Total metres drilled | 103,407 | 62,754 | 166,161 |
% Collar Survey (holes) | 100 | 100 | 100 |
% Downhole Survey (m drilled) | 62.1 | 65.9 | 63.4 |
% Assay (m drilled) | 96.5 | 34.4 | 73.0 |
% Mineralization | 44.1 | 15.9 | 33.4 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 66 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
7.4 | Drilling |
7.4.1 | Historic Drilling – Santa Cruz Deposit |
Santa Cruz deposit diamond drilling consists of 102,261 m of core from 117 NQ drill holes completed between 1965 to 1980. The historic diamond drill core is currently unavailable for review. Table 7-3 provides a summary of the drill campaigns by year and operator.
Table 7-3: Drilling History Within the Santa Cruz Project Area
Year | Operator | Total Metres |
Unknown | Casa Grande Copper Company, Hanna-Getty Mining | 9,083 |
ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 744 | |
1965 | ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 2,698 |
1974 | 2,068 | |
1975 | Casa Grande Copper Company, Hanna-Getty Mining | 2,348 |
ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 682 | |
1976 | Casa Grande Copper Company, Hanna-Getty Mining | 16,633 |
ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 513 | |
1977 | Casa Grande Copper Company, Hanna-Getty Mining | 28,147 |
ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 9,184 | |
1978 | Casa Grande Copper Company, Hanna-Getty Mining | 22,301 |
1979 | ASARCO/Freeport McMoRan Gold Co. JV | 2,468 |
1980 | 5,516 | |
2021 | IVNE | 4,738 |
During the initial site assessment, it was determined that collar coordinates had variable errors. A program was conducted to check the collar locations of a selection from the drill hole database using a professionally licensed surveying company, D2 land surveying. Based on the transformation for these spot-checked drill holes, nearby hole collar locations were adjusted. All historic drilling is conducted at the vertical dip. For the Santa Cruz Project, the drilling has been completed along 100 m spaced section lines with drill holes spaced 90-100 m apart on each section line.
Holes are reverse circulation (RC) drilled through Tertiary sediments until the approximate depth of the Oracle Granite is reached by Major Drilling. Drilling is then switched to diamond drilling through the crystalline basement rocks, and again drilling is executed by Major Drilling.
7.4.2 | Historic Drilling – Texaco Deposit |
The historic Texaco deposit diamond drilling consists of 23,848 m of core from 27 diamond NQ drill holes completed between 1975 to 1997. The drill holes in this deposit area consist of the SC drill hole series. The historic diamond drill core is currently unavailable for review. Table 7-4 provides a summary of the drill campaigns by year and operator.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 67 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 7-4: Drilling History Within the Texaco Exploration Target Area of the Santa Cruz Project
Year | Operator | Total Metres |
1975 | ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan Gold JV | 1,719 |
1976 | ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan Gold JV | 5,207 |
1977 | Casa Grande Copper Co., Hanna-Getty Mining | 2,883 |
ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan Gold JV | 5,906 | |
1996 | ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan Gold JV | 5,086 |
1997 | 3,043 |
During the initial site assessment, it was determined that collar coordinates had variable errors. A program was conducted to check the collar locations of a selection from the drill hole database using a professionally licensed surveying company, D2 land surveying. Based on the transformation for these spot-checked drill holes nearby hole collar locations were adjusted. All historic drilling is conducted at the vertical dip. For the Texaco deposit, the historic drilling has been completed along 100 m to 200 m spaced section lines with drill holes spaced 200 m apart on each section line. The average drill section and spacing in the Texaco deposit is approximately 200 m and varies between approximately 90 m and 250 m.
7.4.3 | 2021 Drilling – IVNE |
The company completed four diamond drill holes totalling 3,601 m within the Santa Cruz deposit at the time of this Technical Report (Table 7-5). The four diamond drill holes were twins of the historical drill holes. All drilling was a mix of rotary and diamond drilling where the first 300 m to 500 m of drilling was rotary to get past the barren tertiary sediments. All samples from within the interpreted mineralized zone were assayed for total Cu (%), acid soluble Cu (%), cyanide soluble Cu (%), and molybdenum (ppm). The collar locations, downhole surveys, logging (lithology, alteration, and mineralization), sampling and assaying between the two sets of drill holes were used to determine if the historical holes had valid information and would not be introducing a bias within the geological model or Mineral Resource Estimate. The comparison included a QA/QC analysis of the historical drill holes (Section 0). Plans for infill drilling and drilling of angled holes have been made to test the continuity of mineralization and gain more information.
Table 7-5 IVNE 2021 Drilling on the Santa Cruz Deposit
Year | Operator | Total Metres |
2021 | IVNE | 3,601 |
A total of four historical holes were reviewed with the following outcomes (Figure 7-6):
· | All four historical hole assays aligned with the2021 diamond drilling assays. |
· | The 2021 diamond drilling assays were of higher resolution due to smaller sample sizes. |
· | The recent drilling validated the ASARCO cyanide soluble assays. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 68 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-6: Collar locations of the historic diamond drilling (orange) versus recent 2021 IVNE twin drill holes (blue)
7.4.3.1 | Core Logging |
Currently, oriented core data is not collected on vertical holes. A televiewer is sent down the completed hole to obtain structural information and to confirm the location of surveys/features. Initially, IVNE was hand-writing the logging data and transferring it into a word document table for daily drill report exports. IVNE now enters information into several tabs within MX Deposits™ while logging, including lithology, alteration, veining, structural zone, structure point, and mineralization. Optional characterizers, including colour and grain size, are available for further identification.
The current database has five major rock types, including 47 major lithologies in line with historically logged lithologies, 21 lithological textures, 17 alteration types, and 15 lithological structures. There are 28 unique economic minerals recorded in the current database, including chalcocite, chrysocolla, chalcopyrite, cuprite, molybdenum, and atacamite. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements are taken by IVNE wherever mineralization of interest is present for internal use.
7.4.3.2 | Surveying |
During the 2021 drilling campaign, downhole surveying was conducted using a EZ Gyro single shot taken at the collar and every 30 m afterwards as the tool is being pulled from the hole.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 69 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
After hole completion, all drill holes were surveyed using borehole geophysics and video through Southwest Exploration Service, LLC. Each borehole was surveyed for 4RX Sonic-Gamma (sampled every 0.06 m), Acoustic Televiewer (sampled every 0.003 m), E-Logs-Gamma (sampled every 0.06 m), and a Gamma Caliper test for fluid temperature conduction (sampled every 0.06 m). This downhole surveying allowed for the calibration of drill hole information post-drilling to ensure that surveying was correct and lithological and mineralogical contacts were logged properly. It also allowed for the collection of very accurate structural measurements.
7.4.3.3 | Specific Gravity |
At both the Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits, no SG measurements were taken from historic diamond drill core. 2021 diamond drilling is aimed at twinning HG historic drilling to confirm the logging and assays. The Company collected 266 SG measurements over four diamond drill holes across the Santa Cruz Project (Table 7-6). SG measurements are taken every 3 m or at each new lithology to ensure a well-rounded database of measurements for each rock type. Measurements are taken using a water dispersion method. The samples are weighed in air, and then the uncoated sample is placed in a basket suspended in water and weighed again.
Table 7-6: Santa Cruz Project SG Measurements
Due to the overall low SG values, multiple different types of SG measurements were tested, all of which indicated that these values are correct. This result is likely due to the high porosity from leaching and excessive faulting/brecciation throughout the mineralized rock.
7.4.4 | 2021-2022 Drilling Program |
Drilling during 2021-2022 is ongoing and included 28,703.5 m in 44 completed RC and diamond drill holes as of June 7th, 2022. This drilling was focused on multiple areas in the Santa Cruz Deposit as well as neighbouring exploration areas. Holes from SCC-001 through SCC-004 were included in the Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”), while all other holes were not included as they are after the drilling cut-off date of June 7th, 2022. Within the Santa Cruz Deposit, these subsequently drilled holes will further refine the geometry and location of the modelled mineralized resources. The exploration holes drilled outside of the Santa Cruz Deposit area will help define mineralized areas and will help direct future work.
Drill hole mineralization locations can be seen in Figure 7-7. Figure 7-8 is an overview outlining the cross-section locations for Figure 7-9 (cross-section for hole SCC-007) and Figure 7-10 (cross-section for holes SCC-014, SCC-017, and SCC-019).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 70 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
A drill hole summary, complete to June 7th, 2022, is found in Table 7-7. Notable mineralization intercepts from the 2021-2022 drilling can be found in Table 7-8.
Table 7-7: 2021-2022 Drilling Summary
Drill Hole | Depth (m) | Azimuth (°) | Dip (°) | Assay Status/Comment |
SCC-001 | 1,275.0 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-002 | 965.3 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-003 | 778.5 | 000 | -90 | Assays Pending for 351.00-443.00m1 |
SCC-004 | 926.9 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-005 | 793.7 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-006 | 1,265.8 | 225 | -56 | All Assays Received |
SCC-007 | 1,344.2 | 232 | -58 | All Assays Received, One Overlimit Assay Pending 894.00-895.00m |
SCC-008 | 1,220.3 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-009 | 945.8 | 225 | -75 | Assays Pending 747.00-945.79m |
SCC-010 | 664.5 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-011 | 1,099.4 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-012 | 379.8 | 000 | -90 | Hole Abandoned, No Assays Taken |
SCC-013 | 855.3 | 000 | -90 | Assays Pending for 814.00-815.27m |
SCC-014 | 1,023.5 | 190 | -84 | All Assays Received |
SCC-015 | 548.9 | 000 | -90 | Hole Abandoned, No Assays Taken |
SCC-016 | 931.2 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-017 | 1,139.3 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-018 | 848.9 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-019 | 1,123.3 | 000 | -90 | Assays Pending for 1,110.00-1,123.34m |
SCC-020 | 284.1 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-021 | 822.4 | 230 | -80 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-022 | 446.8 | 241 | -80 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-022a | 406.5 | 241 | -80 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-023 | 897.9 | 207 | -75 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-024 | 309.8 | 000 | -90 | All Assays Received |
SCC-025 | 396.2 | 228 | -82 | Hole Abandoned, No Assays Taken |
SCC-026 | 741.9 | 209 | -80 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-027 | 550.5 | 259 | -82 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-028 | 369.7 | 230 | -75 | No Assays Taken |
SCC-030 | 280.3 | 230 | -75 | Assays Pending 143.00-280.26m |
SCC-031 | 904.3 | 222 | -85 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-032 | 811.7 | 220 | -78 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-033 | 455.1 | 230 | -60 | Assays Pending for 50.29-242.00m and 349.00-455.07m |
SCC-034 | 201.2 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Received |
SCC-035 | 161.5 | 230 | -75 | No Assays Taken |
SCC-036 | 181.4 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-037 | 379.8 | 230 | -80 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-038 | 311.8 | 230 | -75 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-039 | 253.0 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-040 | 292.6 | 230 | -75 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-041 | 323.1 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-042 | 360.6 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-043 | 127.1 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
SCC-044 | 304.8 | 230 | -60 | All Assays Pending |
1 SCC-003 assays pending are outside the boundaries of the MRE
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 71 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-7: Drill Hole Locations
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 72 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-8: Drilling Overview with Section Location Overview
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 73 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-9: Cross-Section with SCC-007
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 74 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 7-10: Cross-Section with SCC-014, SCC-017, and SCC-019
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 75 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 7-8: Notable 2021-2022 Diamond Drill Hole Intercepts
Drill Hole | Location | Bedrock Depth of Hole (m) |
Total
Depth of Hole (m) |
From (m) | To (m) | Interval Length (m) |
Total Copper (%) |
Acid- Soluble Copper (%) |
Cyanide- Soluble Copper (%) |
Total Soluble Copper (%) |
SCC-001 | Santa Cruz | 514.74 | 1,275.0 | 583.70 | 1027.00 | 443.30 | 1.37 | 0.71 | 0.16 | 0.87 |
Including | ||||||||||
623.10 681.23 732.52 |
673.23 711.32 758.52 |
50.13 30.09 26.00 |
2.55 2.75 2.10 |
2.19 2.22 1.21 |
0.02 0.31 0.66 |
2.21 2.53 1.87 | ||||
776.52 | 1009.00 | 232.48 | 0.88 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.16 | ||||
SCC-002 | Santa Cruz | 441.96 | 965.3 | 587.00 | 633.00 | 46.00 | 1.15 | 0.99 | 0.07 | 1.07 |
639.00 | 702.00 | 63.00 | 1.65 | 1.48 | 0.29 | 1.76 | ||||
721.00 | 919.00 | 198.00 | 1.05 | 0.04 | 0.41 | 0.45 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
723.00 831.00 |
748.00 901.00 |
25.00 70.00 |
3.36 0.67 |
0.23 0.01 |
2.61 0.07 |
2.84 0.08 | ||||
587.00 | 633.00 | 46.00 | 1.15 | 0.99 | 0.07 | 1.07 | ||||
SCC-003 | Santa Cruz | 279.45 | 778.5 | 508.00 | 529.00 | 21.00 | 2.15 | 1.96 | 0.09 | 2.05 |
Including | ||||||||||
513.00 | 523.00 | 10.00 | 3.42 | 3.15 | 0.17 | 3.32 | ||||
538.00 | 566.00 | 28.00 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 0.03 | 0.68 | ||||
593.00 | 629.00 | 36.00 | 0.63 | 0.04 | 0.48 | 0.52 | ||||
SCC-004 | Santa Cruz | 316.38 | 926.9 | 597.00 | 633.00 | 36.00 | 1.46 | 1.28 | 0.14 | 1.42 |
Including | ||||||||||
597.00 | 609.00 | 12.00 | 2.78 | 2.48 | 0.24 | 2.72 | ||||
666.00 | 849.00 | 183.00 | 0.67 | 0.18 | 0.38 | 0.56 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
666.00 | 680.00 | 14.00 | 1.33 | 0.09 | 1.20 | 1.29 | ||||
824.00 | 831.62 | 7.62 | 0.95 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.15 | ||||
902.00 | 908.00 | 6.00 | 0.58 | 0.07 | 0.45 | 0.52 | ||||
SCC-005 | Santa Cruz | 550.01 | 793.7 | 613.17 | 623.00 | 9.83 | 1.88 | 1.42 | 0.03 | 1.46 |
636.00 | 693.00 | 57.00 | 3.52 | 1.88 | 0.89 | 2.77 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
659.00 | 683.14 | 24.14 | 7.02 | 3.33 | 2.07 | 5.40 | ||||
SCC-006 |
Santa Cruz |
527.5 |
1,265.8 |
478.00 | 490.00 | 12.00 | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.45 |
550.00 | 565.00 | 15.00 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.01 | 0.75 | ||||
666.00 | 766.00 | 100.00 | 1.52 | 0.35 | 0.99 | 1.34 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
666.00 | 690.00 | 24.00 | 3.09 | 1.26 | 1.66 | 2.92 | ||||
710.00 | 724.00 | 14.00 | 2.15 | 0.18 | 1.77 | 1.95 | ||||
773.59 | 792.00 | 18.41 | 0.66 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.17 | ||||
836.00 | 879.00 | 43.00 | 0.68 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.08 | ||||
938.00 | 1017.00 | 79.00 | 0.60 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.08 | ||||
1067.00 | 1077.00 | 10.00 | 0.98 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.09 | ||||
SCC-007 |
Santa Cruz |
773.33 |
1,344.2 |
813.59 | 871.00 | 57.41 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 0.01 | 0.85 |
Including | ||||||||||
814.37 | 830.00 | 15.63 | 1.84 | 1.73 | 0.01 | 1.74 | ||||
880.00 | 905.00 | 25.00 | 2.44 | 1.64 | 0.64 | 2.28 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
886.00 | 896.00 | 10.00 | 4.08 | 2.20 | 1.59 | 3.79 | ||||
968.00 | 1304.00 | 336.00 | 1.27 | 0.12 | 0.84 | 0.96 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
982.00 | 1132.00 | 150.00 | 2.08 | 0.17 | 1.83 | 2.00 | ||||
996.00 | 1040.00 | 44.00 | 2.38 | 0.21 | 2.12 | 2.34 | ||||
1088.00 | 1123.00 | 35.00 | 2.28 | 0.13 | 2.04 | 2.18 | ||||
1151.00 | 1164.00 | 13.00 | 1.04 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.06 | ||||
1214.00 | 1222.00 | 8.00 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||
SCC-008 | Santa Cruz | 927.01 | 1,220.3 | 754.00 | 763.00 | 9.00 | 1.95 | 1.82 | 0.02 | 1.83 |
804.00 | 816.00 | 12.00 | 1.19 | 1.01 | 0.02 | 1.03 | ||||
829.00 | 842.00 | 13.00 | 0.56 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.52 | ||||
901.00 | 1057.00 | 156.00 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.21 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
922.00 | 957.00 | 35.00 | 1.12 | 0.03 | 0.32 | 0.35 | ||||
1006.00 | 1027.00 | 21.00 | 0.58 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ||||
1036.00 | 1044.00 | 8.00 | 0.83 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.11 | ||||
SCC-009 | Santa Cruz | 201.47 | 945.8 | 504.00 | 518.00 | 14.00 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 1.00 |
549.00 | 609.00 | 60.00 | 0.64 | 0.34 | 0.26 | 0.61 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
597.00 | 609.00 | 12.00 | 1.34 | 0.13 | 1.15 | 1.27 | ||||
SCC-010 | Exploration | 248.72 | 664.5 | 309.00 | 338.10 | 29.10 | 0.76 | 0.08 | 0.63 | 0.70 |
349.00 | 371.00 | 22.00 | 0.45 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.12 | ||||
565.00 | 592.00 | 27.00 | 0.43 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 76 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Drill Hole | Location | Bedrock Depth of Hole (m) |
Total Depth of Hole (m) |
From (m) | To (m) | Interval Length (m) |
Total Copper (%) |
Acid- Soluble Copper (%) |
Cyanide- Soluble Copper (%) |
Total Soluble Copper (%) |
SCC-011 | Santa Cruz | 719.94 | 1,099.4 | 749.15 | 811.06 | 61.91 | 1.08 | 1.04 | 0.01 | 1.05 |
Including | ||||||||||
749.15 | 760.00 | 10.85 | 1.83 | 1.77 | 0.01 | 1.78 | ||||
766.00 | 809.70 | 43.70 | 1.02 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.99 | ||||
767.00 | 777.00 | 10.00 | 1.52 | 1.49 | 0.01 | 1.50 | ||||
859.00 | 949.00 | 90.00 | 0.83 | 0.44 | 0.30 | 0.74 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
860.00 | 890.00 | 30.00 | 1.62 | 0.82 | 0.64 | 1.45 | ||||
SCC-012 | Exploration | n/a | 379.8 | Hole abandoned above bedrock | ||||||
SCC-013 | Exploration | 472.44 | 855.3 | 735.00 | 741.00 | 6.00 | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
SCC-014 | Exploration | 649.53 | 1,023.5 | 683.00 | 868.98 | 185.98 | 0.64 | 0.2 | 0.22 | 0.24 |
SCC-015 | Exploration | n/a | 548.9 | Hole abandoned above bedrock | ||||||
SCC-016 | Santa Cruz | 192.57 | 931.2 | Engineering hole; was not planned to intersect bedrock | ||||||
SCC-017 | Exploration | 633.57 | 1,139.3 | 756.50 | 1075.00 | 318.50 | 0.88 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
Including | ||||||||||
756.50 | 1040.00 | 283.50 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.25 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
862.00 | 905.00 | 43.00 | 1.26 | 0.01 | 0.26 | 0.28 | ||||
963.00 | 977.99 | 14.99 | 1.19 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||||
1001.83 | 1014.00 | 12.17 | 1.01 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.09 | ||||
SCC-018 | Exploration | 391.21 | 848.9 | |||||||
SCC-019 | Exploration | 637.34 | 1,123.3 | 772.97 | 873.00 | 100.03 | 1.74 | 0.09 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
Including | ||||||||||
772.97 | 846.00 | 73.03 | 2.21 | 0.13 | 1.09 | 1.22 | ||||
931.00 | 942.00 | 11.00 | 0.97 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.13 | ||||
1018.00 | 1059.90 | 41.90 | 0.82 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.06 | ||||
Including | ||||||||||
1021.00 | 1028.00 | 7.00 | 1.44 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.10 | ||||
1071.37 | 1095.00 | 23.63 | 0.61 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ||||
SCC-020 | Exploration | 28.61 | 284.1 | No Intersections of Note | ||||||
SCC-021 | Santa Cruz | 313.05 | 822.4 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-022 | Santa Cruz | 314.8 | 446.8 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-022a2 | Santa Cruz | 314.8 | 406.5 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-023 | Santa Cruz | 93.88 | 897.9 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-024 | Exploration | 44.85 | 309.8 | 169.80 | 211.00 | 41.20 | 0.70 | 0.09 | 0.51 | 0.60 |
SCC-025 | Santa Cruz | n/a | 396.2 | Hole abandoned above bedrock | ||||||
SCC-026 | Santa Cruz | 304.5 | 741.9 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-027 | Santa Cruz | 325.22 | 550.5 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-028 | Exploration | 93.88 | 369.7 | No Assays Taken | ||||||
SCC-030 | Exploration | 37.7 | 280.3 | 119.00 | 139.00 | 20.00 | 0.59 | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.39 |
SCC-031 | Santa Cruz | 684.66 | 904.3 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-032 | Santa Cruz | n/a3 | 811.7 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-033 | Exploration | 54.05 | 455.1 | Assays Pending for 50.29-242.00m and 349.00-455.07m, all assays received are minimal grade | ||||||
SCC-034 | Exploration | 100.6 | 201.2 | 120.40 | 126.49 | 6.09 | 0.59 | 0.13 | 0.45 | 0.58 |
SCC-035 | Exploration | 99.06 | 161.5 | No Assays Taken | ||||||
SCC-036 | Exploration | 44.2 | 181.4 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-037 | Exploration | 78.6 | 379.8 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-038 | Exploration | 71.02 | 311.8 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-039 | Exploration | 53.34 | 253.0 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-040 | Exploration | 39.62 | 292.6 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-041 | Exploration | 124.97 | 323.1 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-042 | Exploration | n/a | 360.6 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-043 | Exploration | n/a3 | 127.1 | All Assays Pending | ||||||
SCC-044 | Exploration | 146.3 | 304.8 | All Assays Pending |
2 Wedge hole
3 Bedrock depth is ongoing and yet to be determined; assays are all pending
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 77 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
7.5 | Geotechnical Data |
No geotechnical work programs have been completed on the property to date.
7.6 | Hydrogeological Data |
No hydrogeological work programs have been completed on the property to date.
7.7 | Nordmin QP Opinion |
In the opinion of the Nordmin QP, the quantity and quality of the lithological, collar, downhole survey, and SG data collected in the historical data compilation and twin hole drilling programs are sufficient to support the MRE.
Core logging completed by IVNE and previous operators meet industry standards for exploration on replacement and porphyry deposits:
· | Collar surveys and downhole surveys were performed using industry-standard instrumentation, |
· | Drill hole orientations are appropriate for the mineralized style, and |
· | Drill hole intercepts demonstrate that sampling is representative. |
No other factors were identified with the data collected from the drill programs that could significantly affect the MRE.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 78 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
8 | SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY |
8.1 | Assay Sample Preparation and Analysis |
Historic drill core was analyzed at Skyline Laboratories in Tucson, Arizona. Assays were taken using acid dissolution of the sample followed by atomic-absorption spectroscopy (AAS).
From September to December 2021, IVNE samples were sent to either Skyline Laboratories facility located in Tucson, Arizona, or American Assay Laboratories located in Sparks, Nevada. At the time, both assay labs were well established and recognized assay and geochemical analytical services companies and were independent of IVNE.
Both laboratories are recognized by the International Standard demonstrating technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (ISO 17025). Additionally, Skyline Laboratories is recognized by ISO 9001, indicating that the quality management system conforms to the requirements of the international standard. American Assay Laboratories carries approval from the State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Protection.
8.1.1 | IVNE Core Sample Preparation and Analysis – 2021 |
The diamond drill core from the Santa Cruz and Texaco properties was sampled by IVNE in 2021 under the direct supervision of Eric Castleberry, US Operations Manager and Santa Cruz Geology Manager Christopher Seligman, MAusIMM CP(Geo). Samples were cut lengthwise using an NTT brand diamond bladed saw; one half was placed in a plastic sample back which was then placed in a burlap sample bag labelled with the sample number, and the other half placed back in the box for catalogue and storage (Figure 8-1, Figure 8-2). Sample bags were then placed in large plastic bags in batches of 25, and were placed in large fold-out plastic bins for transport to the lab facility (Figure 11-3).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 79 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-1: NTT diamond bladed automatic core saw used for cutting diamond drill core for sampling
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 80 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-2: Core storage at IVNE offices/core shack
Figure 8-3: (Left) samples placed in burlap and inner plastic bags labelled with sample numbers; (Right) sample batches placed in large plastic bags and bins for shipping to lab
8.1.1.1 | Skyline Laboratories |
Half of the total drill core samples taken during the 2021 diamond drilling program were sampled and prepared at Skyline Laboratories, Tucson, Arizona. The samples were crushed from the split core to prepare a total sample of up to 5 kg at 75% passing ten microns (µm). Samples were then riffle split, and a 250 g sample was pulverized with a standard steel to plus 95% passing at 150 µm. After sample pulp preparation, the samples were analyzed in the following manner:
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 81 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
· | All samples were analyzed for total Cu using multi-acid digestions with an AAS finish. The lower limit of detection is 0.01% for total Cu, with an upper detection limit of 10%. |
· | Sequential Analysis for cyanide soluble and acid soluble were conducted via multi-acid leaching with an AAS finish. For sequential acid leaching (SEQ) Cu analyses, the lower limit of detection is 0.005%, with an upper detection limit of 10%. |
· | Molybdenum was prepared using multi-acid digestion and analyzed using inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). This analysis has a lower detection limit of 0.001%. |
· | Samples greater than 10% Cu, with a 20% threshold, will be again analyzed using a Long Iodine method. |
8.1.1.2 | American Assay Laboratories |
Half of the total drill core samples from the 2021 drill campaign were prepared and analyzed at American Assay Laboratories in Sparks, Nevada. The samples were crushed from the split core to prepare a total sample of up to 5 kg at 75% passing 10 µm. Samples were then riffle split and pulverized with a standard steel to plus 95% passing at 150 µm. After sample pulp preparation, the samples were analyzed in the following manner:
· | All samples were analyzed for total Cu using AAS, molybdenum with an ICP-MS and acid soluble and cyanide soluble Cu with sequential leaching (AAS). A measurement for residual Cu was also taken; this is essentially the Cu that is measured that cannot be attributed to cyanide soluble, acid soluble, or total Cu. The lower detection limit is 0.001%, with an upper limit of 10%. Samples greater than or equal to 10% will be alternatively measured using Long Iodine analysis, which has an upper detection limit of 20%. |
· | The detection limit at American Assay Laboratories is an order of magnitude less than at Skyline Laboratories; therefore, there is a lower resolution, but during a comparison between the two labs, it was found that the results were similar. |
· | Due to QA/QC failures at American Assay Laboratories, IVNE will not continue to use this lab after pre-paid analyses are completed. |
8.1.2 | Historic Core Assay Sample and Analysis |
Historically, samples for both the Texaco and Santa Cruz deposit drilling were sent to Skyline Laboratories to be assayed for standard total Cu and non-sulphide Cu methods. Samples were crushed and split; a 250-500 mg sample was then prepared in the following ways:
· | Total Cu analysis samples were dissolved using a mixture of HCl, HNO3, and HClO4 over low heat. The mixture was then measured using AAS. |
· | Non-sulphide Cu was dissolved using a mixture of H2SO4 and H2SO3 over moderate to high heat. This mixture was then filtered, diluted, and measured using AAS. |
8.2 | Specific Gravity Sampling |
A total of 266 SG measurements for the Santa Cruz deposit were provided during 2021 on site drill core measurements. SG measurements were taken from representative core sample intervals (approximately 0.1 m to 0.2 m long). SG was measured using a water dispersion method. The samples were weighed in air, and then the uncoated sample was placed in a basket suspended in water and weighed again. SG is calculated by using the weight in air versus the weight in water method (Archimedes), by applying the following formula:
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 82 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
8.3 | Quality Assurance/Quality Control Programs |
QC measures were set in place to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of exploration data. These measures include written field procedures and independent verifications of aspects such as drilling, surveying, sampling, assaying, data management, and database integrity. Appropriate documentation of QC measures and regular analysis of QC data is essential as a safeguard for Project data and form the basis for the QA program implemented during exploration.
Analytical QC measures involve internal and external laboratory procedures implemented to monitor the precision and accuracy of the sample preparation and assay data. These measures are also important to identify potential sample sequencing errors and to monitor for contamination of samples.
The Company submitted a blank, standard, or duplicate sample on every seventh sample. Sampling and analytical QA/QC protocols typically involve taking duplicate samples and inserting QC samples (certified reference material [CRM] and blanks) to monitor the assay results' reliability throughout the drill program.
8.3.1 | Standards |
During the 2021 drilling campaign, IVNE submitted six different CRMs as a part of their QA/QC protocol, with 16 submitted in total. The review of the CRM results identified no laboratory failures at Skyline Laboratories and seven failures at American Assay Laboratories. OREAS 908 falls within the range of +/- two standard deviations for Cu Total (%) and acid soluble Cu (%) (Table 8-1 and
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 83 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 8-2; Figure 8-4 to Figure 8-9). Skyline Laboratories submitted seven different CRMs, including two inhouse CRMs, as a part of their QA/QC process (Table 8-3), and American Assay Laboratories submitted three different CRMs as a part of their QA/QC process (
Table 8-4).
Table 8-1: CRMs Inserted by IVNE into Sample Batches Sent to Skyline Laboratories
Standard | Count | Best Value Cu (%) |
Mean
Value Cu (%) |
Bias (%) |
Best Value Cu-AS- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value Cu-AS- SEQ (%) |
Bias (%) |
Best
Value CuCN- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value CuCN- SEQ (%) |
Bias (%) |
Oreas 908 | 9 | 1.26 | 1.256 | 0.004 | 1.078 | 1.067 | 0.011 | 0.022 | 0.024 | 0.002 |
Oreas 907 | 6 | 0.6 | 0.652 | 0.052 | 0.531 | 0.54 | 0.009 | 0.018 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
Oreas 906 | 4 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0 | 0.269 | 1.126 | -0.86 | 0.01 | 0.019- | -0.009 |
Oreas 501 d | 6 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Oreas 503 d | 4 | 0.53 | 0.524 | 0.006 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Oreas 504c | 1 | 1.13 | 1.09 | 0.04 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 84 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 8-2: CRMs Inserted by IVNE into Sample Batches Sent to American Assay Laboratories
Standard | Count | Best Value Cu (%) |
Mean Value Cu (%) |
Bias
(%) |
Best
Value CuAS- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value CuAS- SEQ (%) |
Bias (%) |
Best Value CuCN- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value CuCN- SEQ (%) |
Bias (%) |
Oreas 908 | 10 | 1.26 | 1.299 | 0.039 | 1.078 | 1.067 | 0.64 | 0.022 | 0.023 | 0.001 |
Oreas 907 | 5 | 0.6 | 0.643 | 0.043 | 0.531 | 0.54 | 1.31 | 0.018 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
Oreas 906 | 2 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.02 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Oreas 503c | 1 | 0.27 | 0.545 | 0.275 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Oreas 504c | 3 | 1.13 | 1.11 | 0.02 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Table 8-3: Skyline Laboratory Submitted CRMs
Standard | Count | Best Value CuT (%) |
Mean Value CuT (%) |
Bias (%) |
Best Value Cu-AS- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value |
Bias (%) |
Best Value Cu-CN- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value |
Bias (%) |
SKY5 | 48 | - | - | - | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.155 | 0.156 | 0.00 |
SKY6 | 48 | - | - | - | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.01 | 0.076 | 0.077 | 0.00 |
CDN-CM-21 | 14 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CDN-CM-14 | 34 | 1.06 | 1.07 | -0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CDN-CM-29 | 12 | 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CDN-CM-33 | 12 | 0.35 | 0.36 | -0.01 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CDN-W-4 | 20 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Table 8-4: American Assay Laboratory Submitted CRMs
Standard | Count | Best Value Cu (%) |
Mean
Value Cu (%) |
Bias (%) |
Best
Value Cu-AS- SEQ (%) |
Mean Value Cu-AS- SEQ (%) |
Bias (%) |
OREAS 600b | 3 | 0.05 | 0.051 | 0.00 | - | - | - |
OREAS 602b | 3 | 0.494 | 0.495 | 0.00 | - | - | - |
OREAS 905 | 3 | 0.157 | 0.158 | 0.00 | 0.128 | 0.127 | 0.001 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 85 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-4: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard total Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories
Figure 8-5: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 86 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-6: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at Skyline Laboratories
Figure 8-7: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard total Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 87 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-8: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard acid soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories
Figure 8-9: Santa Cruz deposit, Oreas 908 standard cyanide soluble Cu (g/t), assayed at American Assay Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 88 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
8.3.2 | Blanks |
The Company submitted 50 coarse blanks during the 2021 drill campaign, at the time of this report, as part of its QA/QC process. The Company used local granite blanks during the 2021 drill campaign as part of its QA/QC process. One blank was used labelled as Blank. The blank has been tested by Skyline Laboratories to ensure that there is no trace of Cu present. The charts not presented in this section are available in Appendix B. No significant carryover of elevated metals is evident in blanks measured at Skyline Laboratories (Figure 8-10). There is a carryover of metals evident in blanks measured at American Assay Laboratories related to dust control issues at this lab (Figure 8-11). The samples from these batches were re-analyzed by the lab, as set out in the QA/QC protocol. Results from these samples were not received in time to be included in the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Figure 8-10: Blanks submitted by IVNE to Skyline Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 89 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-11: Blanks submitted by IVNE to American Assay Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process
8.3.3 | Field and Laboratory Duplicates |
The Company submitted 64 field duplicates during the 2021 drill campaign, at the time of this report, as a part of its QA/QC process. Original versus duplicate sample results for total Cu (%) are present in Figure 8-12 and Figure 8-13. The results of the field duplicates are in good agreement for total Cu (%), acid soluble Cu (%) and cyanide soluble Cu (%). Skyline Laboratories submitted 175 lab duplicates (119 total Cu, 125 Acid Soluble, 125 Cyanide Soluble and 119 Mo) during the 2021 drill campaign as a part of their QA/QC process. The results of the laboratory duplicates versus the original sample measurements for total Cu (%) are presented in Figure 8-14. The results of the laboratory duplicates are in good agreement for total Cu (%), acid soluble Cu (%) and cyanide soluble Cu (%). American Assay Laboratories submitted 21 Lab duplicates (all measured for total Cu, acid soluble Cu, cyanide soluble Cu and molybdenum) during the 2021 drill campaign as a part of their QA/QC process. The results of the laboratory duplicates are in good agreement for total Cu (%), acid soluble Cu (%) and cyanide soluble Cu (%) and molybdenum (ppm). The results of the duplicates versus the original sample measurements for total Cu (%) can be viewed in Figure 8-15.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 90 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-12: Original versus field duplicate sample results as total Cu (%) from samples submitted to Skyline Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 91 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-13: Original versus field duplicate sample results as total Cu (%) from samples submitted to American Assay Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 92 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 8-14: Duplicates completed by Skyline Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process
Figure 8-15: Duplicates completed by American Assay Laboratories as a part of their QA/QC process
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 93 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
8.4 | Security and Storage |
The Santa Cruz Project core is stored in wax impregnated core boxes and transported to the core logging shack. After being logged, the core boxes are stacked within metal shelving within the core shack/Company office. The building can be locked with bay doors for security purposes. All samples are transported by courier to the laboratory either in Tucson, Arizona, or Sparks, Nevada.
8.5 | Nordmin QP’s Opinion on the Adequacy of Sample Preparation, Security, and Analytical Procedures. |
Nordmin has been supplied with all raw QA/QC data and has reviewed and completed an independent check of the results for all of the Santa Cruz Project sampling programs. Nordmin has completed a lab inspection of the Skyline Laboratories, and IVNE has completed a lab inspection of American Assay Laboratories. It is Nordmin’s opinion that the sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures used by all parties are consistent with standard industry practices and that the data is suitable for the Mineral Resource Estimate. Nordmin identified further recommendations to IVNE to ensure the continuation of a robust QA/QC program but has noted that there are no material concerns with the geological or analytical procedures used or the quality of the resulting data.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 94 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
9 | DATA VERIFICATION |
Nordmin completed several data validation checks throughout the duration of the Mineral Resource Estimate. The verification process included a two-day site visit to the Santa Cruz Project by Nordmin to review surface geology, drill core geology, geological procedures, QA/QC procedures, chain of custody of drill core and the collection of independent samples for metal verification. The data verification included:
· | a survey spot check of drill collars; |
· | a spot check comparison of assays from the drill hole database against original assay records (lab certificates); |
· | a spot check of drill core lithologies recorded in the database versus the core located in the core farm; |
· | a spot check of drill core lithologies in the database versus the lithological model; |
· | a review of the QA/QC performance of the drill programs. |
Nordmin has also completed additional data analysis and validation, as outlined in Section 11.
9.1 | Nordmin Site Visit 2022 |
Nordmin completed a site visit to the Santa Cruz Project from March 2nd to March 6th, 2022. Nordmin was accompanied by IVNE management team members and project geologists. Additionally, Nordmin also visited the site on November 3rd and November 4th, 2021.
Activities during the site visits included the:
· | Review of the geological and geographical setting of the Santa Cruz Project. |
· | Review and inspection of the site geology, mineralization, and structural controls on mineralization. |
· | Review of the drilling, logging, sampling, analytical and QA/QC procedures. |
· | Review of the chain of custody of samples from the field to the assay lab. |
· | Review of the drill logs, drill core, storage facilities, and independent assay verification on selected core samples. |
· | Confirmation of several drill hole collar locations. |
· | Review of the structural measurements recorded within the drill logs and how they are utilized within the 3D structural model. |
· | Validation of a portion of the drill hole database. |
IVNE geologists completed the geological mapping, core logging, and sampling associated with each drill location. Therefore, Nordmin relied on IVNE’s database to review the core logging procedures, the collection of samples, and the chain of custody associated with the drilling programs. The Company provided Nordmin with digital copies of the logging and assay reports. All drilling data, including collars, logs, and assay results, were provided to Nordmin prior to the site visit.
No significant issues were identified during the site visit.
The Company employs a rigorous QA/QC protocol, including the routine insertion of field duplicates, blanks, and certified reference standards. Nordmin was provided with an excerpt from the database for review.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 95 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Currently, structural measurements are not taken during logging and are compiled after televiewer data collection. This allows for the accurate measurement of structures. The Company plans to employ oriented drilling in the future to allow for structural measurements to be taken during logging.
The geological data collection procedures and the chain of custody were found to be consistent with industry standards and following IVNE’s internal procedural documentation; and Nordmin was able to verify the quality of geological and sampling information and develop an interpretation of Cu (primary, acid soluble and cyanide soluble) grade distributions appropriate for the Mineral Resource Estimate.
9.1.1 | Field Collar Validation |
The location of four drill holes within the Santa Cruz deposit were confirmed during the 2022 site visit (Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1. These holes are vertical twins of historic drilling. During the initial property assessment, it was determined that the historic collar locations were incorrect. This finding led to the re-surveying of multiple collars using a sub-metre scale GPS Professional Land surveyor; conducted by D2 surveying – licensed land surveyor for re-surveying of historic drill collars.
The QP and IVNE Senior Geologist collected several collar locations during the site visit using a Garmin GPSMAP 64sx handheld GPS unit. The collars taken by Nordmin are very similar, if not exact, to what IVNE had for collar locations. Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1 demonstrate the comparison between the collected 2021 collar locations to the IVNE collar locations used in the Mineral Resource Estimate. Table 9-2 and Figure 9-2 demonstrate the comparison between the collected collar locations for historic drill holes to the IVNE collar locations used in the MRE.
Photos of drill hole collars for historic holes CG-091 and CG-030 can be seen in Figure 9-3.
Table 9-1: Check Coordinates for IVNE 2021 Drilling, March 3, 2022
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 96 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-1: Map of check drill hole collars from the 2022 site visit, also displaying all diamond drill hole collars
Table 9-2: Check Coordinates for Historic Drilling Within the Santa Cruz Deposit, March 3, 2022
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 97 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-2: Map of historic drill hole collars, also displaying all diamond drill hole collars
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 98 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-3: Collars for historic diamond drill holes CG-091 and CG-030
9.1.2 | Core Logging, Sampling, and Storage Facilities |
The Company drill holes are logged, photographed, and sampled on site at the core logging facility (Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5). No historic core is available. Recently drilled core is currently being kept stacked on metal shelves within IVNE’s core logging facility (Figure 8-2). The core samples, pulps, and coarse rejects are kept at the core shack.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 99 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-4: IVNE core logging facility located in Casa Grande, Arizona
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 100 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-5: Core photography station at the IVNE core logging facility
Historic drill core has not been preserved; several core dumps can be found around the property, but it is not available for review.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 101 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
9.1.3 | Independent Sampling |
Nordmin selected intervals from two Santa Cruz deposit holes. A total of 33 verification samples were collected (Table 9-3). Diamond drill core previously sampled (halved) was re-sampled by having the labs re-analyze the coarse reject material. Two assay laboratories were used during the 2021 drill campaign; therefore, the decision was made by Nordmin to send the independent samples to both laboratories to check for any lab bias.
Table 9-3: Original Assay Values Versus Nordmin Check Sample Assay Values from the 2022 Site Visit
Original Sample | Check Sample | |||||||||
Sample Number | From | To | Cu
T (%) |
CuAs- SEQ |
Cu-CN-SEQ | Mo (%) |
Cu
T (%) |
CuAs- SEQ |
Cu- CN- SEQ |
Mo (%) |
SKY5022508 | 582.35 | 583.70 | 0.12 | 0.041 | 0.005 | 0.013 | 0.12 | 0.045 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
SKY5022513 | 587.70 | 588.70 | 6.05 | 4.535 | 0.014 | 0.012 | 6.03 | 5.544 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
SKY5022517 | 590.70 | 591.70 | 2.02 | 1.756 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 2.17 | 2.134 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
SKY5022525 | 591.70 | 600.70 | 1.2 | 1.069 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 1.23 | 1.207 | 0.012 | 0.006 |
SKY5022601 | 600.70 | 687.23 | 3.99 | 3.803 | 0.039 | 0.005 | 4.05 | 3.947 | 0.039 | 0.005 |
SKY5022604 | 600.70 | 690.23 | 6.89 | 1.472 | 3.742 | 0.011 | 6.95 | 1.527 | 5.31 | 0.01 |
SKY5022585 | 664.23 | 666.23 | 1.98 | 1.818 | 0.007 | 0.012 | 1.99 | 1.98 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
SKY5022565 | 666.23 | 642.10 | 2.63 | 2.348 | 0.012 | 0.007 | 2.62 | 2.621 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
SKY5022730 | 816.00 | 817.00 | 0.61 | 0.0025 | 0.068 | 0.005 | 0.62 | 0.005 | 0.075 | 0.003 |
SKY5022754 | 836.00 | 837.00 | 1.99 | 0.0025 | 0.204 | 0.012 | 2.05 | 0.0025 | 0.214 | 0.011 |
SKY5022823 | 939.00 | 941.00 | 0.62 | 0.007 | 0.064 | 0.002 | 0.64 | 0.009 | 0.066 | 0.002 |
SKY5022824 | 941.00 | 943.00 | 0.55 | 0.0025 | 0.031 | 0.006 | 0.55 | 0.005 | 0.031 | 0.006 |
SKY5022823 | 939.00 | 941.00 | 0.62 | 0.007 | 0.064 | 0.002 | 0.65 | 0.0025 | 0.06 | 0.002 |
SKY5022824 | 941.00 | 943.00 | 0.55 | 0.0025 | 0.031 | 0.006 | 0.55 | 0.0025 | 0.032 | 0.002 |
The Company uses unmineralized material (an alkaline granite from the area), where values of ore minerals are below detection limits or quartz gravel as sample blanks. The blank material was analyzed at Skyline Laboratories to ensure that there was no significant amount of Cu present. Coarse blanks are crushed as normal samples within the sample stream so that contamination during sample preparation can be detected. Blanks are used to assess proper instrument cleaning and instrument detection limits and contaminations within the lab.
The Nordmin assay results were compared to IVNE’s database and summarized in the scatter plots for total Cu (%) (Figure 9-6, Figure 9-7 and Figure 9-8). Despite some significant sample variances in a few samples, most assays compared within reasonable tolerances for the deposit type and no material bias was evident. No bias was evident among lab analyses.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 102 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-6: Nordmin independent sampling total Cu (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories
Figure 9-7: Nordmin independent sampling acid soluble Cu (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 103 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-8: Nordmin independent sampling of cyanide soluble (%) assays from Skyline Laboratories
9.1.4 | Audit of Analytical Laboratory |
On September 17, 2021, the Nordmin QP and representatives from IVNE audited the sample preparation and analysis facilities of Skyline Laboratories in Phoenix, Arizona. Recommendations from the audit were provided to Skyline Laboratories and follow up was completed by IVNE representatives to ensure that the recommendations were implemented.Santa Cruz Deposit
9.2 | Twin Hole Analysis |
Nordmin completed a twin hole analysis between the historical Hanna-Getty and ASARCO diamond drilling versus the 2021 IVNE drilling to determine if the historical information could be used in the geologic model and Resource Estimate. The analysis compared the collar locations, downhole surveys, logging (lithology, alteration, and mineralization), sampling and assaying between the two groups to determine if the historical holes had valid information and would not be introducing a bias within the geological model or Resource Estimate. The comparison included a QA/QC analysis of the historical drill holes.
A total of four historical holes were reviewed with the following outcomes (Figure 9-9):
· | All four historical hole assays aligned with 2021 diamond drilling assays |
· | 2021 diamond drilling assays were of higher resolution due to smaller sample sizes |
· | Recent drilling validated the ASARCO cyanide soluble assays |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 104 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-9: Collar locations of historic diamond drilling (orange) versus recent 2021 IVNE twin drill holes (blue)
Figure 9-10 demonstrates that grade variability and location were insignificant between CG-027 and SCC-001 and demonstrated overall grade continuity between the intercepts. Resolution is higher in SCC-001 downhole due to smaller sample sizes compared to historic drilling. Table 9-4 demonstrates good agreement between historic logging and current logging using the same regional lithology types. This provides confidence in the accuracy of the geologic model and that associations made between mineralization and lithology are valid. Similar patterns are observed within the other three historical drill holes used within the Resource Estimate, which included reliable QA/QC data.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 105 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 9-10: Comparison of assays from SCC-001 versus CG-027. A) shows the direct comparison of total Cu assays as Cu (%). B) SCC-001 and CG-027 showing downhole charts of acid soluble Cu assays (%) on the left and total Cu (%) assays on the right.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 106 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 9-4: Downhole Lithology Logging Comparison of CG-027 versus SCC-001
TgcU = Tertiary unconsolidated sediments, TgcL = Tertiary Lithified Sediments, Mixed = breccias, LI = Laramide Intrusives, pC = Precambrian Granites/Diabase Dykes and Aplites
Hole ID | FROM (m) | TO (m) | Lithology | Hole ID | FROM (m) | TO (m) | Lithology |
CG-027 | 0 | 24.38 | Tert. Sediments | SCC-001 | 0 | 514.78 | Conglomerate |
24.38 | 85.34 | Tert. Sediments | Conglomerate | ||||
85.34 | 195.07 | Tert. Sediments | Conglomerate | ||||
195.07 | 347.47 | Tert. Sediments | Conglomerate | ||||
347.47 | 542.54 | Tert. Sediments | 514.78 | 544.03 | Conglomerate | ||
542.54 | 563.88 | Tert. Sediments | 544.03 | 551.28 | Conglomerate | ||
563.88 | 566.92 | No data | 551.28 | 556.26 | Fault | ||
566.92 | 576.07 | Tert. Sediments | 556.26 | 578.76 | Breccia | ||
576.07 | 579.12 | Tert. Sediments | 578.76 | 600.93 | Quartz Monzonite | ||
579.12 | 585.52 | No data | 600.93 | 603.35 | Quartz Monzonite | ||
585.52 | 603.5 | Mixed | |||||
603.5 | 606.55 | Tert. Sediments | 603.35 | 615.03 | Quartz Monzonite | ||
606.55 | 612.64 | Mixed | |||||
612.64 | 615.69 | Tert. Sediments | |||||
615.69 | 621.79 | Mixed | 615.03 | 660.24 | Granodiorite | ||
621.79 | 640.08 | Laramide Int. | |||||
640.08 | 643.12 | Tert. Sediments | |||||
643.12 | 658.36 | Laramide Int. | |||||
658.36 | 694.94 | Granite | 660.24 | 705.39 | Granite | ||
694.94 | 697.99 | Granite | 705.39 | 707.83 | Granodiorite | ||
697.99 | 710.18 | Granite | |||||
710.18 | 713.23 | Laramide Int. | 707.83 | 724.47 | Granite | ||
713.23 | 719.32 | Granite | 724.47 | 732.03 | Granodiorite | ||
719.32 | 731.52 | Laramide Int. | |||||
731.52 | 734.56 | Laramide Int. | 732.03 | 751.71 | Granite | ||
734.56 | 807.72 | Granite | 751.71 | 769.62 | Granite | ||
769.62 | 802.66 | Granite | |||||
802.66 | 807.511 | Gabbro | |||||
807.72 | 816.86 | Laramide Int. | 807.511 | 818.39 | Granite | ||
816.86 | 923.54 | Granite | 818.39 | 820.23 | Fault | ||
820.23 | 845.75 | Granite | |||||
845.75 | 849.17 | Fault | |||||
849.17 | 891.7 | Granite | |||||
891.7 | 897.94 | Granite | |||||
897.94 | 910 | Granite | |||||
910 | 921.22 | Fault | |||||
923.54 | 926.59 | Laramide Int. | 921.22 | 928.75 | Granodiorite | ||
926.59 | 929.64 | Granite | 928.75 | 946.09 | Fault |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 107 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Several holes have been twinned over the course of the exploration work conducted on the Santa Cruz deposit. Nordmin was able to match most of the intervals for each of the pairs and plotted the grades for Cu, Cu-SEQ, and Mo. In Nordmin’s opinion, for most of the pairs, the assay results compared reasonably well; the HG and LG zones were similar, and the grades tended to cluster in the same ranges. In Nordmin’s opinion, the twinning has provided a reasonably consistent verification of the earlier Hanna-Getty and ASARCO drill results, particularly considering the differences in the assay, survey methods and QA/QC protocols.
9.3 | Database Validation |
The Nordmin QP completed a spot check verification of the following drill holes:
• | Santa Cruz Project –89 (19%) of the lithologies, 388 (55%) of the geotechnical measurements, 328 (70%) of the assays. |
The geology was validated for lithological units from handwritten logs transcribed into excel tables and historic logs compiled into a logging database. Lithological units being implemented in current logging are the same as the units used historically. The geological contacts and lithology aligned with the core contacts and lithology and are acceptable for use. Two assay depth errors from 2021 drilling were brought to the attention of the on site geologists. These errors were rectified, and the database was updated. The entire database was run through the QGIS validity check to look for errors. No significant errors were found in the database.
Within the database, a portion of historic drill holes is missing the downhole survey and assay data. Holes drilled by Casa Grande Copper Co. have 62.1% of the survey data and 96.5% of the assay data. Holes drilled by ASARCO have 65.9% of the downhole survey data and only 34.4% of the assay data available. Missing data has been well documented by IVNE, and vertical twins of historic drill holes have been and continue to be drilled to confirm lithology, assay, and geotechnical data (Section 9.1.4).
9.4 | Review of Company’s QA/QC |
The Company has a robust QA/QC process in place, as previously described in Section 11. The Company geologists actively monitor the assay results throughout the drill programs and summarize the QA/QC results, reporting daily and monthly. In the event of a QA/QC failure, the entire sample batch would either be re-sampled at the same lab or sent to the secondary lab for re-sampling. The assay laboratories also employ a rigorous QA/QC protocol and will re-sample batches in the event of a QA/QC failure. The CRMs performed as expected within tolerances of two to three standard deviations of the mean grade. Blank failures at American Assay Laboratories lead to the re-sampling of several batches at American Assay Laboratories. Due to the continued dust issues found at this lab causing metal contamination amongst samples, this lab will no longer be employed by IVNE after pre-paid samples are run. Nordmin is satisfied that the QA/QC process performs as designed to ensure the assay data quality.
9.5 | Nordmin QP’s Opinion |
Upon completion of the data verification process, it is the Nordmin QP’s opinion that the geological data collection and QA/QC procedures used by IVNE are consistent with standard industry practices and that the geological database is of suitable quality to support the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 108 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
10 | MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING |
Mineralized material from the Santa Cruz deposit was evaluated by the Casa Grande Copper Corporation (CGCC) Hanna-Getty JV and by the SCJV in conjunction with the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines (subsequently Bureau of Reclamation). Most of the mineral processing and metallurgical test program review relates to the studies conducted by CGCC. The QP has not been able to verify if the test samples are representative of the various types and styles of mineralization and the mineral deposit as a whole. Access to memos detailing the composition of the samples is being negotiated.
10.1 | CGCC Studies (1976-1982) |
The CGCC studies were conducted by the Hanna Mining Company Research Centre in Minnesota. They evaluated three distinct processing routes listed below. Prefeasibility and/or feasibility level reports were prepared for each process. There is a fourth process, heap leach, that was investigated with conceptual studies, but no PFS, or FS level study was pursued for this process route. Approximately 90 mineral processing and metallurgical test programs were conducted. The number of tests conducted in each program ranged from 6 to 40. Three different processes were considered by CGCC:
• | All Agitated Tank Leach Approach (91% total Cu recovery to cathodes). |
• | All-Float Approach (92% total Cu recovery to cathodes or a mixture of cathodes and saleable Cu concentrates). |
• | Leach – Float Process (94% Cu recovery to cathodes or to a mixture of cathodes and saleable Cu concentrates). |
CGCC selected the leach float process to move forward with.
10.1.1 | Sample Selection |
Initial testing (1976 – 1977) was performed on drill core coarse rejects as they became available from the drilling program. Grinding tests, open cycle bench level flotation tests and bottle roll leach tests were performed. Composite samples from multiple holes and intervals were usually used in these tests. The composite sample was described in some test reports, or a reference was made to a separate memo regarding the composite make-up (drill holes and their intervals were listed); therefore, there was adequate information provided regarding the composite sample source material.
In 1977 and 1978, after more drilling, very large composites were produced for mineral processing tests. A memo was referenced in each test program that described the drill holes and intervals used to produce the composites. Two significant composites were referenced at this time: one composite represented the mineralized material in the HG part of the Santa Cruz deposit (1.5% total Cu). The other major composite represented the mineralized material in the entire deposit, including the primary Cu sulphides.
Additional selective composite samples, compared to the major ones described above, were generated in 1979, and used for test programs in 1979 and 1980. Memos provided describe what drill holes and intervals were used to generate each composite sample. These composites represented major ore types found in the Santa Cruz deposit. There was a composite generated for each of the ore types:
• | HG Supergene |
• | Supergene Dilution |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 109 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
• | LG Supergene |
• | Mixed Chalcocite/Chalcopyrite |
• | Primary Chalcopyrite |
• | Exotic Ore |
• | Exotic Dilution Ore |
Mineral processing and metallurgical tests were conducted on each ore type.
10.1.2 | Grinding Studies |
Grinding studies were conducted using laboratory size rod mills on 1000-gram samples. The initial sample types from the early drilling programs were tested, as were the major composite samples of the Santa Cruz deposit that were available after the completion of several drill programs across the Santa Cruz deposit. Grinding for leaching was investigated separately from grinding for flotation purposes. The QP is of the opinion that industry accepted practices that conform to the 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines were applied. Ground samples for flotation were subjected to rougher flotation and standard Cu recovery (non-acid soluble Cu) and concentrate grade relationships developed to determine the best primary grind P80. Ground samples for leaching were subjected to bottle roll leaching with sulphuric acid or sulphuric acid and ferric sulphate as lixiviant.
The results of the grinding studies (leaching and flotation) on the major composite representing the whole deposit were used for testing later composites of the ore types listed above. The optimum primary grinding size for rougher Cu sulphide flotation was found to be P80 212 micron with a bond work index of 6.5 kWh/tonne. The optimum grind size for whole ore agitated tank leaching, with either type lixiviant mixture, was determined to P80 800 micron.
These grinding studies were applied to major composites of the Santa Cruz deposit and to the composites of ore types listed above under Sample Selection. There was no variability testing conducted. Therefore, the test results would be acceptable for a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) level study program today. A PFS level study would require 30 to 40 variability tests of selected drill holes and drill intervals, and a FS level study would need 100 or more.
10.1.3 | Flotation Studies |
The QP is of the opinion that the CGCC standard test procedures described for open cycle flotation and closed cycle flotation tests used industry accepted practices. The flotation equipment described is still in use today. All tests were documented just as they would be today, with such information as: P80’s, float times, reagent names, and consumptions, notes on froth appearance, etc. The regrind test program for the cleaner circuit flotation was somewhat vague. However, Cu sulphide concentrate grade and overall Cu recovery (non-acid soluble Cu) results were typical based on the rougher flotation recoveries reported (mid-nineties), so the regrind was performed correctly. Cu recovery after cleaning was in the low nineties and the concentrate grade varied from 25% to 50% Cu depending on Cu sulphide ore mineralogy.
Flotation of atacamite together with Cu sulphides was evaluated and found to be successful in producing a 12% concentrate at recoveries in the mid-nineties for the atacamite and Cu sulphide minerals. The chloride in this concentrate was leached out almost completely with a patented NaOH leach leaving behind Cu sulphides and Cu hydroxide. The Cu hydroxide was leached out with weak sulphuric acid solution producing a pregnant leach solution (PLS) for solvent extraction-electrowinning (SX-EW), and the left behind Cu sulphides were pH adjusted and reground, then upgraded in a cleaner flotation circuit. Cu recovery of the Cu oxides (excluding atacamite) was poor. Thus, total Cu recovery was in the mid-eighties. An all-float process was developed later where the Cu oxides were economically recovered, and total Cu recovery was raised to the low nineties for this flow sheet.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 110 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Flotation test programs were applied to all the composite samples described above under Sample Selection. The test programs would be acceptable for a PEA level program today but not for a PFS or FS level study today because of the lack of any significant variability flotation testing of the Santa Cruz deposit.
10.1.4 | Leaching Studies |
Leaching test programs were applied to the composite samples described above under Sample Selection. They were also applied to another ore deposit composite that represented mineralization containing principally acid soluble Cu minerals and secondary sulphide Cu minerals.
The QP is of the opinion that test procedures described would meet industry accepted practices and conform to 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines for determining the leachability of an ore with sulphuric acid or acidic ferric sulphate at the PEA level. Once again lack of any variability type test program prevents its use at the PFS and FS levels. Industry accepted practices for bottle roll tests were used where PLS samples were withdrawn at timed intervals, and Cu, acid, ferric, and pH levels were measured. Acid was added to maintain pH. Optimum leach time, ferric level, and pH were determined based on plots of Cu extraction rate, acid consumption rate, and ferric consumption rate.
Acid leach test results on the composites tested were generally consistent. Acid soluble Cu recovery was in the mid-nineties for a 4-hour leach time. Acid consumption ranged from 18.5 to 23 kg of acid per tonne of ore (without the SX-EW acid credit on Cu electrowon). The best pH was 1.5.
Acidic ferric sulphate leaching on a composite of acid soluble Cu minerals and secondary sulphide minerals was successful. The best agitated tank leach conditions were determined to be:
• | 24-hour leach time |
• | 40oC leach temperature |
• | 10 grams per litre (gpl) ferric concentration |
Acid soluble Cu recovery was 95%. Non-acid soluble Cu recovery was 90%. Total Cu recovery was 90-91%.
Sulphuric acid heap leaching was evaluated on one hole, 27 A, across most of its length using the column cell test method. Nine column cell tests were conducted from selected intervals of core. The calculated head grade was 1.4% total Cu and 1.2% acid soluble Cu. Total Cu extraction was 77% and acid soluble Cu 89%. Gangue acid consumption was 18.5 lb acid/ton ore. The QP is of the opinion that procedures applied during the tests were acceptable industry practices and conform to the 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines.
10.1.5 | Copper Measurement |
An important aspect of the test programs described above are the analytical techniques used for measuring total Cu and acid soluble Cu in ores, and total Cu in concentrates. The sequential Cu assaying method had not been developed yet for the CGCC test programs from 1976 to 1982. Thus, secondary sulphide concentrations in the test composite samples were estimated from mineralogy studies on the composites and from drill core mineral logging records. The analytical methods used are referred to in several of the test memos on file. However, access to those memos was not available at the time when this report was written. Acceptable techniques for accurately measuring total Cu and acid soluble Cu in ore and total Cu in Cu concentrates were available at the time of the Hanna testing. Until those memos are available, the QP is of the opinion that it would be logical to assume Hanna applied well established analytical methods, with accurate Cu standards, for these determinations. The same assumptions would go for measuring Cu concentrations in PLS (by atomic-absorption) and Cu in electrolyte (by titration). Hanna had been an established mining company with a research centre for a few decades by this time.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 111 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
10.2 | ASARCO Study by Mountain States Engineering (1980) |
This study evaluated leaching in place fragmented acid soluble Cu ore from block cave mining. There were no mineral processing and metallurgical tests associated with what was called, at the time, a preliminary feasibility study. As mentioned above, Cu recovery factor and column of ore caving factors are used from other nearby underground mines, using the block cave mining method, and/or that were leaching block cave rubbled ore with dilute sulphuric acid. This study could not be used today for a PEA level study due to no test work. This work can be considered conceptual and referenced as such.
10.3 | Santa Cruz In Situ Study |
As discussed in Section 6, the Santa Cruz In Situ project was a research project between the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines (subsequently Bureau of Reclamation) and the landowners, the SCJV between ASARCO Santa Cruz Inc. and Freemont McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.
Metallurgical studies of core (2-inch diameter by 2.5-inch-long), from the proposed in situ leach zone in the pilot program reported Cu recoveries ranging from 57 % to 90%. Total Cu ranged from 2.3% to 9%. Tests were run for 3,000 hours to 3,800 hours (125 days to 158 days), and no extraction rate versus time data was reported, which is unusual because it is critical to know for the process design and for the well development schedule. Flow volumes varied from two millilitres per day to several litres per day, and pressures ranged from 0 psi to 1000 psi. The studies reported the acid consumption would be 1.2 lbs per 1.0 pound of Cu recovered on atacamite samples and ranged between 3-8 pounds per pound of Cu for the chrysocolla samples (with some very high consumption rates initially, 10+ pounds per pound). The initial acid concentration in the feed solution varied from 5 to 40 gpl H2SO4.
Leach tests on the core showed that initial permeability rates were very low when the solution initially contacted the core in the test apparatus. But, later, as Cu-oxide minerals dissolved from the filled fractures, acceptable permeability rates were achieved.
The QP is of the opinion that the in situ leach test program used industry accepted practices and conforms to the 2019 CIM Best Practise Guidelines. Total Cu and acid soluble analytical methods were satisfactory for the measurement of the core samples. Identification of the core sample by drill hole and interval was performed. Cross sections of the sample location in the proposed ore area for the five-spot injection and well design were provided. Samples were representative of the proposed test region.
The pilot program started in February 1996. Funding was cancelled in October 1997 after the US Bureau of Mines folded, but injection continued until December 1997 and pumping until the end of February 1998. No metallurgical or economic results were made public afterwards. Pilot program Cu cathode production was much less than anticipated according to reported production of 18 tons of cathode Cu and the SX-EW (solvent extraction, electrowinning) design capacity of 1,000 tons per year. The pilot program was never restarted, and the JV partners of ASARCO and Freeport McMoRan did not show interest in pursuing the project further, and neither has pursued in situ Cu mining anywhere else since 1998.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 112 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
10.4 | Process Factors and Deleterious Elements |
There are no processing factors or deleterious elements that could have a significant effect on economic extraction. The processes proposed in the CGCC, ASARCO, and Santa Cruz In Situ studies for extraction of Cu from the ore are all conventional in design and have been used economically for many decades. There have been significant advances in most of these technologies since 1980, when most of the studies were conducted, which have improved the economics of these processes. Some examples are:
• | Materials of construction of SX plants are cheaper and more resistant to chlorides in solution from leaching atacamite. SX wash circuits or organic coalescers eliminate the concern of chloride carryover to the EW. |
• | SX reagents are much more selective for Cu extraction, react faster, separate faster from the aqueous media they are mixed with and are more robust today. |
• | SAG and ball mill grinding circuits are designed much more efficiently today and the liner and grinding media used last much longer than in 1980. |
• | Flotation cell designs are more efficient now and have raised recovery and concentrate grades. |
• | Environmental controls for dust, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and aerosol mists are much more efficient compared to then. |
10.5 | QP Opinion |
After completion of the review of mineral processing and metallurgical testing by The Hanna Mining Company and the United States Bureau of Mines, it is the opinion of the QP that the testing procedures, results interpretations and reporting met standard industry practices. The only issue noted was the samples selected by The Hanna Mining Company for their testing programs were not described in adequate enough detail to confirm the representativeness of the mineralized material tested. The referenced reports describing the drill holes and selected drill core intervals of the samples were not available at the time of publishing this technical report. However, these reports are expected to be available in the future.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 113 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11 | MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES |
11.1 | Drill Hole Database |
The work on the Mineral Resource Estimate included a detailed geological and structural re-examination of the Santa Cruz deposit.
The Santa Cruz deposit Mineral Resource Estimate benefits from approximately 104,184 m of diamond drilling in 121 drill holes spanning from 1964 to 2021 (Figure 11-1).
Figure 11-1: Plan view of Santa Cruz Project diamond drilling
Diamond drill hole samples were analyzed for total Cu and acid soluble Cu using AAS. A decade after initial drilling, ASARCO re-analyzed select samples for cyanide soluble Cu (AAS) and molybdenum (ICP). The Company currently analyzes all samples for total Cu, acid soluble Cu, cyanide soluble Cu, and molybdenum. Due to the re-analyses to determine cyanide soluble Cu within historic samples, there are instances where cyanide soluble Cu is greater than total Cu. It has been determined that the historic cyanide soluble assays are valid as they align with recent assays in 2021 drill holes. Therefore, a cap has been applied to historic cyanide soluble assays such that they must be equal to or less than the associated total Cu value for each sample. Drill hole counts are summarized in Table 11-1, and the number of assays used within each Mineral Resource Estimate is provided in Table 11-2.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 114 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-1: Drill Hole Count Summary
Deposit | DDH Count | Total Meterage (m) |
Santa Cruz | 125 | 104,184 |
Table 11-2: Mineral Resource Estimate Number of Assays by Assay Type
Assay Type | Santa Cruz Deposit Assays |
Total Cu | 17,692 |
Acid Soluble Cu | 2,583 |
Cyanide Soluble Cu | 826 |
Molybdenum | 5,114 |
11.2 | Domaining |
11.2.1 | Geological Domaining |
Geological domains were developed within the Santa Cruz deposit based upon geographical, lithological, and mineralogical characteristics, along with incorporating both regional and local structural information. Local D2 fault structures separate the mineralization at the adjacent Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits. Local fault zones were created and/or extrapolated by Rogue using Seequent’s LeapfrogTM geological modelling software. The Santa Cruz deposit was divided into two main geological domains consisting of the weathered supergene enrichment and the primary hypogene mineralization domain. Each of these geological domains was further subdivided based upon their type of Cu speciation, specifically acid soluble (Oxide Domain), cyanide soluble (Chalcocite Enrichment Domain), primary Cu sulphide (Primary Domain), and exotic Cu (Cu oxides in overlying Tertiary sediments). Collectively each of these domains was further subdivided based upon their individual grade profiles. A schematic for the Santa Cruz deposit hierarchy is outlined in Figure 11-2 and Table 11-3.
Figure 11-2: Domaining hierarchy of the Santa Cruz Project
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 115 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-3: Santa Cruz Geological Domains
Santa Cruz deposit | |
Weathered Supergene Enrichment | Oxide Domain (Primarily Acid Soluble Cu) |
Chalcocite Enriched Domain (Primarily Cyanide Soluble Cu) | |
Exotic Domain (Tertiary-Hosted Exotic Cu) | |
Hypogene Mineralization | Primary Domain (Primarily Primary Sulphide Cu) |
Exotic Cu is primarily present within the CG2 and CG3 D2 Fault structures. All other Cu styles of mineralization hosted within the Oracle Granite lithology terminate at the contact of the Tertiary sediments. The current drilling indicates that the Cu mineralization is truncated at depth by the basal faults within the region.
The Oracle Granite hosts both the Laramide Porphyry and Diabase dykes, both of which are associated with brecciation and Cu mineralization. Secondary supergene Cu mineralization is separated from the primary hypogene mineralization by a Cu-oxide boundary layer titled the Chalcocite Enriched Domain. This domain is defined by a 2:1 relationship of acid soluble to total Cu and follows the dip of the contact of the Oracle Granite-Tertiary sediments contact. The Chalcocite Enriched Domain was formed by two different enrichment events. HG Cu oxides follow the trend of the Laramide porphyries closely and likely contain significant amounts of primary mineralization. Cyanide soluble Cu can be found within both the supergene Cu and hypogene Cu domains as a form of secondary enrichment of chalcocite. Cyanide soluble assays were measured a decade after initial diamond drilling by ASARCO, and as such, the data is not available for all of the sample intervals within the drill holes. As such, the cyanide soluble Cu wireframes were built based upon available data, and a regression analysis was used to infill the missing values for acid and cyanide soluble Cu. Figure 11-3 is a conceptual example of the Santa Cruz deposit domaining.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 116 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-3: Santa Cruz deposit domain idealized cross-section
11.2.2 | Regression |
A regression analysis was conducted to infill the downhole intervals that are missing relevant acid soluble and cyanide soluble data. The analysis used the relationships between all applicable data available to determine the most appropriate regression calculations using Orange Datamining Software (version 3.30.2). The software created regression formulas that were applied to the total Cu assays to calculate accurate acid soluble and/or cyanide soluble values. Table 11-4 and Table 11-5 define the regression formulas that were used. All further references to acid soluble and cyanide soluble Cu grades will apply to the full regression-applied values.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 117 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-4: Regression Analysis for Acid Soluble Cu
Domain | Criteria/Field | Criteria 2 | Regression Formula | R2 |
Exotic | No conditions | - | ASCu % = (0.9333 * Total Cu %) - 0.0338 | 0.99 |
Oxide | No conditions | - | ASCu % = (0.6758 * Total Cu %) + 0.123 | 0.64 |
Chalcocite Enrichment | In LG Wireframe | - | ASCu % = (0.8007 * Total Cu %) - 0.4162 | 0.68 |
In MG Wireframe | - | ASCu % = (0.1741 * Total Cu %) + 0.0899 | 0.20 | |
Primary |
Assay Field: LITH_SPEC_GROUP |
DacPorph | ASCu % = (0.1192 * Total Cu %) + 0.0314 | 0.38 |
GranOracle | ASCu % = (0.0862 * Total Cu %) + 0.0095 | 0.22 | ||
Absent, AndPorph, SGHc | ASCu % = (0.072 * Total Cu %) + 0.0297 | 0.68 | ||
Background |
Assay Field: LITH_GEN_GROUP |
TVP | ASCu % = (0.677 * Total Cu %) + 0.0514 | 0.80 |
Tgc | ASCu % = (0.9606 * Total Cu %) - 0.0651 | 0.97 | ||
TgcS | ASCu % = (0.9081 * Total Cu %) - 0.0267 | 0.97 | ||
pC Grouped | ASCu % = (0.5225 * Total Cu %) - 0.0899 | 0.37 | ||
Absent | ASCu % = (0.6349 * Total Cu %) - 0.1107 | 0.47 |
Table 11-5: Regression Analysis for Cyanide Soluble Cu
Domain | Criteria/Field | Criteria 2 | Regression Formula | R2 |
Exotic | n/a | - | CNCu % = 0 | n/a |
Oxide | In LG Wireframe | - | CNCu % = (1.0237 * Total Cu %) - 0.0847 | 0.87 |
In MG Wireframe | - | CNCu % = (1.0115 * Total Cu %) - 0.3625 | 0.63 | |
In HG Wireframe | - | CNCu % = (0.6778 * Total Cu %) - 0.1683 | 0.52 | |
Chalcocite Enrichment | No conditions | - | CNCu % = (0.7612 * Total Cu %) + 0.0258 | 0.73 |
Primary | No criteria | - | CNCu % = (0.9459 * Total Cu %) - 0.2093 | 0.85 |
Background | No conditions | - | CNCu % = (0.8288 * Total Cu %) - 0.1101 | 0.81 |
11.2.3 | Mineralization Domaining |
Mineralization within the Santa Cruz deposit is hosted within crystalline basement rocks, including the Oracle Granite, Laramide porphyry, and Diabase dykes.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 118 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Nordmin initially examined and modelled the grade distributions for the hypogene and supergene Cu domains and their corresponding sub-domains. Each sub-domain was further domained based upon their Cu grade distribution. The grade distributions were created for exotic Cu, Cu oxides, chalcocite enrichment, and primary hypogene Cu. The analysis confirmed that the changes in mineralization and corresponding grade are associated with the type of Cu mineralization. The higher-grade mineralization is a result of secondary supergene enrichment and is near the contact between the Oracle Granite and Tertiary sediments. While the Primary Domain consists of moderate grade hypogene Cu that is predominately hosted within the Laramide porphyry, Diabase dykes, and associated breccias at greater depth. As such, Nordmin created grade shells for each of the Cu types at multiple grades to reflect the lithological and geochemical differences.
Mineralization wireframes were initially created on 50 m sections and plans and adjusted between various views to edit and smooth each wireframe where required. The wireframes were permitted to follow lithological boundaries and trends where applicable. When not cut-off by drilling, the wireframes terminate at either the contact of the Cu-oxide boundary layer, the Tertiary sediments/Oracle Granite contact or D2 fault structure. There is an overlap of cyanide soluble Cu with either acid soluble Cu in the weathered supergene domain or with primary Cu in the primary hypogene mineralization domain. Otherwise, no wireframe overlapping exists within a given grade domain. The use of explicit modelling allows for mineralization in context with the Santa Cruz deposit geology and associated geochemistry to be considered. It is Nordmin’s opinion that the explicit modelling approach minimizes risks within the resource estimation process when compared to using implicit modelling.
Grade domain wireframes were modelled for four domains: acid soluble Cu, primary sulphide Cu (chalcocite, chalcopyrite), cyanide soluble Cu, and exotic Cu. Each domain consists of sub-domains, that are based on the following grade distributions outlined in Table 14-6.
Table 11-6: Santa Cruz Deposit Domain Wireframes
11.3 | Exploratory Data Analysis |
The exploratory data analysis was conducted on raw drill hole data to determine the nature of the element distribution, correlation of grades within individual rock units, and the identification of HG outlier samples. Nordmin used a combination of descriptive statistics, histograms, probability plots, and XY scatter plots to analyze the grade population data using X10- Geo (V1.4.18). The findings of the exploratory data analysis were used to help define modelling procedures and parameters used in the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 119 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the grade distribution of each sample population, determine the presence of outliers, and identify correlations between grade and rock types for each mineral sub-domain.
One drill hole, SC-013, contained assay interval errors. The interval from 0 m to 696.77 m was removed from the flagging process.
CG-018 had collar and survey errors. This drill hole has been re-drilled and named CG-018A. Relevant data that would be present in CG-018 can be found in CG-018A. Since the location of the drill hole is incorrect, there can be no way to confirm what depths the assays are from with confidence. Therefore, due to the surveying issues, this drill hole was removed from the database.
Individual drill hole tables (collar, survey, assay, etc.) were merged to create one single master de-surveyed drill hole file. The processing to create this file splits assay intervals to allow for all records in all drilling tables to be included in one single file. Values in Table 11-7 are based on analysis of this master file; counts will differ when compared with the original data.
Table 11-7: Santa Cruz Deposit Domain, Assays by Cu Grade Sub-Domain
Domain | Sub-Domain | Sample Count | Total Cu | Acid Soluble Cu | Cyanide Soluble Cu | Mo |
Exotic | LG (0.5%) | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 |
HG (2.0%) | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | |
Oxide | LG (0.5%) | 2,140 | 2,140 | 2,140 | 2,140 | 2,140 |
HG (2.0%) | 836 | 836 | 836 | 836 | 836 | |
Chalcocite Enrichment | Low | 588 | 588 | 588 | 588 | 588 |
Med | 434 | 434 | 434 | 434 | 434 | |
Primary | LG (0.5%) | 2,917 | 2,917 | 2,917 | 2,917 | 2,917 |
Medium Grade (1.0%) | 954 | 954 | 954 | 954 | 954 | |
HG (1.5%) | 222 | 222 | 222 | 222 | 222 | |
Background | 4,717 | 4,696 | 4,717 | 4,717 | 4,716 | |
Total | 13,704 | 13,725 | 13,725 | 13,724 | 13,704 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 120 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-5 to Figure 11-7 provide the data analysis for the total Cu LG, MG, and HG sub-domains for the Cu-Oxide Domain within the Santa Cruz deposit. The data analysis for all grade domains is available in Appendix C.
Figure 11-4: Histogram and log probability plots for the Cu-oxide LG Sub-Domain
Figure 11-5: Histogram and log probability plots for the primary Cu LG Sub-Domain
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 121 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-6: Histogram and log probability plots for the chalcocite enrichment LG Sub-Domain
Figure 11-7: Histogram and log probability plots for the exotic Cu LG Sub-Domain
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 122 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11.4 | Data Preparation |
Prior to grade estimation, the data was prepared in the following matter:
· | All drill hole assays that intersected a wireframe within each domain were assigned a set of codes representative of the domain, wireframe number, and mineralization type. |
· | The raw assay data was manually “flagged” to intersecting Cu mineralization sub-domains outlined by the wireframe coding process. |
· | HG outlier assays in each domain were reviewed, and if needed, a top cut was applied (capped). |
11.4.1 | Non-assayed Assay Intervals |
Table 11-8 summarizes the drill holes used in the resource model. The assay database provided to Nordmin by IVNE contained appropriately substituted minimum detection assay values.
Table 11-8: Assays at Minimum Detection
Field | Count | Minimum
Detection Limit |
Count
at Minimum Detection Limit |
%
at Minimum Detection Limit |
Cu Total (%) | 33,247 | 0.01 | 71 | 0.21 |
Acid Soluble Cu (%) | 10,941 | 0.005 | 171 | 1.56 |
Cyanide Soluble Cu (%) | 2,297 | 0.005 | 111 | 4.83 |
Mo (%) | 7,307 | 0.001 | 3,066 | 41.9 |
11.4.2 | Outlier Analysis and Capping |
Grade outliers that are much higher than the general population of assays have the potential to bias (inflate) the quantity of metal estimated in a block model. Geostatistical analysis using XY scatter plots, cumulative probability plots, and decile analysis was used by Nordmin to analyze the raw drill hole assay data for each domain to determine appropriate grade capping. Statistical analysis was performed independently on all domains. After capping, the resulting change to the overall mean grades is insignificant at the Santa Cruz deposit. Cap values and theoretical metal loss are described in Table 11-9.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 123 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-9: Santa Cruz Domain, Outlier Analysis, and Capping
Sub- domain |
Field | Number of Samples |
Number of Capped Samples |
Min | Max | Uncapped Average |
Capped Average |
Capped Value |
Theoretical Metal Loss (%) | |
Cu Oxide Enrichment | LG | T_Cu | 1,083 | - | 0.000 | 2.230 | 0.392 | - | - | - |
AS_Cu | 610 | - | 0.003 | 1.850 | 0.413 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 138 | - | 0.007 | 2.290 | 0.544 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 321 | - | 0.000 | 0.057 | 0.009 | - | - | - | ||
HG | T_Cu | 802 | - | 0.005 | 10.100 | 2.250 | - | - | ||
AS_Cu | 764 | - | 0.003 | 8.400 | 1.810 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 299 | - | 0.003 | 9.950 | 1.030 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 394 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.233 | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.150 | 0.800 | ||
Primary Cu | LG | T_Cu | 2,241 | 1 | 0.005 | 1.930 | 0.547 | 0.547 | 1.500 | 0.040 |
AS_Cu | 2,122 | - | 0.001 | 0.960 | 0.050 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 280 | - | 0.007 | 1.860 | 0.445 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 639 | - | 0.000 | 0.115 | 0.012 | - | - | - | ||
MG | T_Cu | 1,042 | 3 | 0.01 | 5.200 | 0.934 | 0.929 | 3.000 | 0.500 | |
AS_Cu | 1,016 | - | 0.001 | 1.190 | 0.099 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 372 | - | 0.008 | 2.180 | 0.712 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 452 | - | 0.000 | 0.100 | 0.016 | - | - | - | ||
HG | T_Cu | 244 | - | 0.29 | 11.650 | 2.094 | - | - | - | |
AS_Cu | 243 | - | 0.003 | 1.230 | 0.189 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 115 | 1 | 0.111 | 11.030 | 2.085 | 2.076 | 9.000 | 0.400 | ||
Mo (%) | 60 | 2 | 0.000 | 0.347 | 0.037 | 0.035 | 0.250 | 5.400 | ||
Chalcocite Enrichment | LG | T_Cu | 440 | - | 0.000 | 6.930 | 0.899 | - | - | - |
AS_Cu | 415 | - | 0.001 | 5.387 | 0.338 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 405 | - | 0.006 | 2.050 | 0.574 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 241 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.233 | 0.016 | 0.016 | 0.150 | 1.100 | ||
MG | T_Cu | 437 | - | 0.02 | 11.650 | 1.620 | - | - | - | |
AS_Cu | 430 | - | 0.02 | 3.640 | 0.396 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | 431 | - | 0.01 | 11.030 | 1.450 | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 168 | - | 0.000 | 0.347 | 0.022 | 0.021 | 0.20 | 3.800 | ||
Exotic Cu | LG | T_Cu | 94 | - | 0.01 | 2.400 | 0.737 | - | - | - |
AS_Cu | 79 | - | 0.14 | 2.220 | 0.773 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||
Mo (%) | 30 | - | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.005 | - | - | - | ||
HG | T_Cu | 35 | - | 1.91 | 12.600 | 4.640 | - | - | - | |
AS_Cu | 34 | - | 0.85 | 11.700 | 4.320 | - | - | - | ||
CN_Cu | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Mo (%) | 21 | - | 0.000 | 0.014 | 0.005 | - | - | - |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 124 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11.4.3 | Compositing |
Compositing of assays is a technique used to give each assay a relatively equal length and therefore reduce the potential for bias due to uneven assay lengths; it prevents the potential loss of assay data and reduces the potential for grade bias due to the possible creation of short and potentially HG composites that tend to be situated along the edge of a wireframe contact when using a fixed length.
The raw assay data was found to have a relatively narrow range of assay lengths. Assays captured within all wireframes were composited to 3.0 m regular intervals based on the observed modal distribution of assay lengths, which supports a 5.0 m x 5.0 m x 5.0 m block model (with sub-blocking). An option to use a slightly variable composite length was chosen to allow for backstitching shorter composites that are located along the edges of the composited interval. All composite assays were generated within each mineral lens with no overlaps along boundaries. The composite assays were validated statistically to ensure there was no loss of data or change to the mean grade of each assay population (Table 11-10).
Table 11-10: Santa Cruz Deposit Composite Analysis
Domain | Sub-domain | Number of Composites |
Primary | LG | 3,454 |
MG | 1,007 | |
HG | 194 | |
Oxide | LG | 3,170 |
HG | 635 | |
Chalcocite Enriched | LG | 855 |
MG | 382 | |
Exotic | LG | 129 |
HG | 29 | |
Background | n/a | 5,375 |
11.4.4 | Specific Gravity |
A total of 266 SG measurements from four diamond drill holes exist from the Santa Cruz deposit. Measurements were calculated using the weight in air versus the weight in water method (Archimedes), by applying the following formula:
Nordmin determined that the required amount and distribution of SG measurements did not allow for direct estimation of SG within the block model. SG values were assigned to blocks based on lithology as seen in Table 7-6.
To summarize, SG values were assigned as follows:
· | Granodiorite and quartz monzonite were attributed an SG value of 2.552. |
· | Oracle Granite was attributed an SG value of 2.500. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 125 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11.4.5 | Block Model Strategy and Analysis |
A series of upfront test modelling was completed to define an estimation methodology to meet the following criteria:
· | Representative of the Santa Cruz deposit geological and structural controls. |
· | Accounts for the variability of grade, orientation, and continuity of mineralization. |
· | Controls the smoothing (grade spreading) or grades and the influence of outliers. |
· | Accounts for most of the mineralization within the Santa Cruz deposit. |
· | Is robust and repeatable within the mineral domains. |
· | Supports multiple domains. |
Multiple test scenarios were evaluated to determine the optimum processes and parameters to use to achieve the stated criteria. Each scenario was based on Nearest Neighbour (NN), inverse distance squared (ID2), inverse distance cubed (ID3), and ordinary kriging (OK) interpolation methods.
All test scenarios were evaluated based on global statistical comparisons, visual comparisons of composite assays versus block grades, and the assessment of overall smoothing. Based on the results of the testing, it was determined that the final resource estimation methodology would constrain the mineralization by using hard wireframe boundaries to control the spread of mineralization. OK was selected as the interpolation method best representative of the Santa Cruz deposit.
11.4.6 | Assessment of Spatial Grade Continuity |
Datamine and Sage 2001 was used to determine the geostatistical relationships of the Santa Cruz deposit. Independent variography was performed on composite data for each domain. Experimental grade variograms were calculated from the capped/composited assay data for each element to determine the approximate search ellipse dimensions and orientations.
The analyses considered the following for each analysis:
· | Downhole variograms were created and modelled to define the nugget effect. |
· | Experimental pairwise to relative correlogram variograms were calculated to determine directional variograms for the strike and down dip orientations. |
· | Variograms were modelled using an exponential with practical range. |
· | Directional variograms were modelled using the nugget defined in the downhole variography, and the ranges for the along strike, perpendicular to strike, and down dip directions. |
· | Variograms outputs were re-oriented to reflect the orientation of the mineralization. |
Search parameters were applied using dynamic anisotropy for exotic Cu. Dynamic anisotropy interpolation is an estimation method used in conjunction with “normal” estimation interpolation methods (NN, ID, OK, etc.), which takes into consideration the local variation of the domain orientation in the block estimation. Practically, this involves in a per block inclusion and modification of the search parameters. This generally results in a lower number of search ellipsoids.
Six search ellipsoids were applied to estimation, one for each type of Cu mineralization, including two for Cu-oxide mineralization (HG, LG), and background (primary supergene, secondary Cu-oxide (HG, LG), exotic Cu, chalcocite, and background). The search parameters used for the estimation are provided in Section 14.4.9. Some domains share variography parameters due to similar behaviour. The variography used for Santa Cruz is provided in Table 11-11. Figure 11-8 is the Primary Domain total Cu variogram, Figure 11-9 is the Oxide Domain total Cu variogram, Figure 11-10 is the Oxide Domain acid soluble Cu variogram, Figure 11-11 is the Chalcocite Enriched Domain total Cu variogram and Figure 11-12 is the Exotic Domain total Cu variogram.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 126 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-11: Santa Cruz Deposit Variography Parameters
Domain | Element | Rotation Angles | Structure 1 | Structure 2 | ||||||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | Axes | Range 1 | Range 2 | Range 3 | C1 | Range 1 | Range 2 | Range 3 | C1 | Nugget | ||
Primary | TCu | -12 | -11 | 38 | Z-Y-Z | 27.9 | 249 | 28.4 | 0.26 | 300 | 1,430 | 170 | 0.09 | 0.64 |
ASCu | 1 | 32 | -39 | Z-Y-Z | 26.9 | 38.1 | 48.6 | 0.26 | 98 | 2,844 | 50 | 0.45 | 0.27 | |
CNCu | -78 | -9 | 34 | Z-Y-Z | 6.4 | 33 | 24.2 | 0.72 | 370 | 91 | 61 | 0.18 | 0.72 | |
Oxide | TCu | -75 | 33 | -15 | Z-Y-Z | 24.3 | 46.9 | 27.2 | 0.56 | 920 | 79 | 87 | 0.08 | 0.35 |
ASCu | -20 | -41 | 9 | Z-Y-Z | 28 | 23.9 | 23.7 | 0.59 | 898 | 86 | 81 | 0.14 | 0.27 | |
CNCu | 22 | 62 | 32 | Z-Y-Z | 6.1 | 8.3 | 15.1 | 0.05 | 40 | 272 | 34 | 0.50 | 0.44 | |
Chalcocite Enriched |
TCu | -3 | 20 | -31 | Z-Y-Z | 8.5 | 39.9 | 24.5 | 0.51 | 1,876 | 111 | 115 | 0.42 | 0.06 |
ASCu | -55 | -70 | 92 | Z-Y-Z | 30.4 | 10.3 | 54.7 | 0.72 | 382 | 90 | 154 | 0.72 | 0.16 | |
CNCu | -55 | 19 | 14 | Z-Y-Z | 7.8 | 24.7 | 25.2 | 0.56 | 2,521 | 87 | 76 | 0.43 | 0.006 | |
Exotic | TCu | 4 | 45 | -53 | Z-Y-Z | 35.5 | 34.6 | 38.4 | 0.63 | 34.7 | 69.6 | 65 | 0.34 | 0.2 |
ASCu | -43 | 48 | -34 | Z-Y-Z | 33.3 | 34.8 | 34.7 | 0.56 | 33.6 | 99.2 | 63.3 | 0.41 | 0.029 | |
CNCu | -78 | -9 | 34 | Z-Y-Z | 6.4 | 33 | 24.2 | 0.72 | 370 | 91 | 61 | 0.18 | 0.09 | |
Background | TCu | -33 | 6 | -7 | Z-Y-Z | 35.5 | 17.3 | 62.4 | 0.24 | 1,067 | 544 | 336 | 0.48 | 0.28 |
ASCu | 10 | 1 | 21 | Z-Y-Z | 32.5 | 20.8 | 502 | 0.44 | 1,689 | 392 | 232 | 0.31 | 0.24 | |
CNCu | -130 | 2 | -29 | Z-Y-Z | 23.9 | 31.2 | 86.1 | 0.35 | 428 | 804 | 337 | 0.34 | 0.30 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 127 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-8: Primary Domain total Cu variogram
Figure 11-9: Oxide Domain total Cu variogram
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 128 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-10: Oxide Domain acid soluble Cu variogram
Figure 11-11: Chalcocite Enriched Domain Total Cu Variogram
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 129 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-12: Exotic Domain Total Cu Variogram
11.4.7 | Block Model Definition |
The block model shape and size are typically a function of the geometry of the deposit, the density of assay data, drill hole spacing, and the selected mining unit. Taking this into consideration, the block model was defined with parent blocks at 5.0 m x 5.0 m x 5.0 m (N-S x E-W x Elevation). The block model prototype parameters are listed in Table 11-12.
Table 11-12: Santa Cruz Deposit Block Model Definition Parameters
Item | Block
Origin (m) |
Block
Max (m) |
Block
Dimension (m) |
Number
of Parent Blocks |
Minimum
Sub- Block (m) |
Easting | 414,200 | 421,500 | 5 | 1,460 | 1.25 |
Northing | 3,637,800 | 3,644,800 | 5 | 1,400 | 1.25 |
Elevation | -1,200 | 500 | 5 | 340 | 1.25 |
All mineral Sub-domain wireframe volumes were filled with blocks using the parameters described in Table 11-12. Block volumes were compared to the mineral Sub-domain wireframe volumes to confirm there were no significant differences. Block volumes for all sub-domains were found to be within reasonable tolerance limits for all mineral Sub-domain volumes. Sub-blocking was allowed to maintain the geological interpretation and accommodate the HG, MG, and LG sub-domains (wireframes), the lithological SG, and the category application. Sub-blocking has been allowed to the following minimums:
· | 5.0 m x 5.0 m x 5.0 m blocks are sub-blocked two-fold to 1.25 m x 1.25 m in the N to S and E to W directions with a variable elevation calculated based on the other sizes. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 130 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
The block models were not rotated, and it was not necessary to clip them to topography due to their depth. The resource estimation was conducted using Datamine Studio RMTM version 1.7.100.0 within the NAD 83 UTM Zone 12 N projection grid.
11.4.8 | Interpolation Method |
The Santa Cruz deposit block model was estimated using NN, ID2 (inverse distance to the power of 2), ID3 (inverse distance to the power of 3), and OK (Ordinary Kriging) interpolation methods for global comparisons and validation purposes. The OK method was used for the Mineral Resource Estimate; it was selected over ID2, ID3, and NN as the OK method was the most representative approach to controlling the smoothing of grades.
11.4.9 | Search Strategy |
Zonal controls were used to constrain the grade estimates to within each LG, MG, and HG wireframe. These controls prevented the assays from individual domain wireframes from influencing the block grades of one another, acting as a “hard boundary” between the sub-domains. For instance, the composites identified within the BG total Cu wireframe were used to estimate the BG total Cu, and all other composites were ignored during the estimation. A “soft boundary” was used in all other Sub-domain wireframes. For example, a LG wireframe was allowed to use composites from the MG wireframe to help populate the block model; the low grade primary total Cu composites included composites from both the low and medium grade flagging. These soft boundaries are as follows (in the case where no MG Sub-domain exists, the HG composites were substituted):
· | BG: No soft boundary |
· | LG: Soft boundary with MG composites |
· | MG: Soft boundary with HG composites |
· | HG: No soft boundary |
Search orientations were used for estimation of the block model and were based on the shape of the modelled mineral domains (Table 11-15). A total of three nested searches were performed on all sub-domains. The search distances were based upon the variography ranges outlined in Table 11-11. The search radius of the first search was based upon the first structure of the variogram, the second search is approximately two times the first search pass, and the third search pass is 1.5 times the initial search. Search strategies for each domain used an elliptical search with a minimum, and a maximum number of composites defined in estimated blocks were left as absent and not reported in the Mineral Resource Estimate.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 131 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-13: Santa Cruz Deposit Block Model Search Parameters
Search Distances | Search Rotation | ||||||||
Domain | Dist 1 | Dist 2 | Dist 3 | Angle 1 | Angle 2 | Angle 3 | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | Axis 3 |
Primary (LG/MG/ HG) | 27.9 | 100 | 28.4 | -12 | -11 | 38 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Oxide LG | 24.3 | 46.9 | 27.2 | -80 | 33 | -60 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Oxide HG | 24.3 | 46.9 | 27.2 | -75 | 33 | -15 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Chalcocite (LG/MG) | 8.5 | 39.9 | 24.5 | -3 | 20 | -31 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
Exotic (LG/HG) | 60 | 80 | 10 | 60 | 25 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
Background | 35.5 | 17.3 | 62.4 | -33 | 6 | -7 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
11.5 | Block Model Validation |
The block model validation process included visual comparisons between block estimates and composite grades in plan and section views, local versus global estimates for NN, ID2, ID3, and OK, and swath plots. Block estimates were visually compared to the drill hole composite data in all domains and corresponding sub-domains to ensure agreement. A non-material bias was noted in the lower grade cyanide soluble Cu cut-off within the Chalcocite Enriched Domain Estimated OK values for cyanide soluble Cu are notably higher than NN, ID2, and ID3 values. An analysis led to the following conclusion:
· | A lack of sufficient cyanide soluble Cu lab assays. |
· | The variography of the cyanide soluble Cu within the Chalcocite Enriched Domain is oriented notably different than the search used for estimating NN, ID2, and ID3). Figure 11-13 demonstrates the estimation orientation differences, as well as the OK variography ellipsoid. |
While this bias is notable, it has been determined that the OK estimation is accurately estimating grade within the Chalcocite Enriched Domain, while the NN, ID2, and ID3 estimations are under-representing the cyanide soluble Cu grade.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 132 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-13: Cross-section outlining the analysis of cyanide soluble Cu estimation within the Chalcocite Enriched Domain
11.5.1 | Visual Comparison |
The validation of the interpolated block model was assessed by using visual assessments and validation plots of block grades versus capped assay grades and composites. The review demonstrated a good comparison between local block estimates and nearby samples without excessive smoothing in the block model.
Figure 11-14 through Figure 11-22 are the block model validation images, displaying total Cu, acid soluble Cu, or cyanide soluble Cu grades in the block model and drill holes. Visual block model validation images, including Au, Cu, and Ag, are available in Appendix D.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 133 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-14: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 134 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-15: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 135 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-16: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 136 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-17: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 137 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-18: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 138 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-19: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 139 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-20: Block model validation, total Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 140 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-21: Block model validation, acid soluble Cu, cross-section
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 141 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-22: Block model validation, cyanide soluble Cu, cross-section
11.5.2 | Swath Plots |
A series of swath plots were generated for total Cu, acid soluble Cu, and cyanide soluble Cu from slices throughout each domain. They compare the block model grades for NN, ID2, ID3, and OK to the drill hole composite grades to evaluate any potential local grade bias. A review of the swath plots did not identify bias in the model that is material to the Mineral Resource Estimate, as there was a strong overall correlation between the block model grade and the capped composites used in the Mineral Resource Estimate. Figure 11-23, Figure 11-24, and Figure 11-25 are the swath plots for total Cu, acid soluble Cu, and cyanide soluble Cu.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 142 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-23: Swath plots, total cu
Figure 11-24: Swath plots, acid soluble cu
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 143 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-25: Swath plots, cyanide soluble cu
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 144 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
11.6 | Mineral Resource Classification |
The Mineral Resource Estimate was classified in accordance with S-K 1300. Mineral Resource classifications were assigned to broad regions of the block model based on the Nordmin QP’s confidence and judgment related to geological understanding, continuity of mineralization in conjunction with data quality, spatial continuity based on variography, estimation pass, data density, and block model representativeness.
Classification (Indicated and Inferred) was applied to the Santa Cruz deposit based on a full review that included the examination of drill spacing, visual comparison, kriging variance, and search volume estimation (the estimation pass in which each block was populated) along with the search ellipsoid ranges. Collectively this information was used to manually construct wireframes to further limit the mineral resource classification.
Figure 11-26, Figure 11-27, and Figure 11-28 demonstrate the resource classification in section throughout the Santa Cruz deposit. Additional figures can be found in Appendix E.
The areas of greatest uncertainty are attributed to Inferred Resources. These are areas with limited drilling or very large drill spacing (>100 m). Due to lack of drilling it is difficult to be confident in the continuity of mineralization and is therefore classified as Inferred and may be upgraded via infill drilling to support mineralization continuity. Indicated Resources are resources that have consistent drill spacing, low to moderate kriging variance and a visual comparison. In the Santa Cruz deposit the drill spacing that supports the Indicated Resource classification constitutes approximately 80 m to 100 m. There is the possibility for Indicated Resources to be upgraded to Measured Resources via additional infill drilling that would reduce the drill spacing to <25 m. Currently the Santa Cruz deposit does not have a Measured Resource. Additional uncertainty lies in the historical drill measurements including logging, assaying and surveying. The 2021 twin drilling program conducted by IVNE outlined in Section 7.4.3 and Section 9.1.4 has demonstrated overall grade continuity, location and continuity between intercepts. There is the potential for unknown errors within the database which could affect the size and quantity of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources.
Figure 11-26: Plan section demonstrating resource classification, -260 m depth
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 145 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-27: Plan section demonstrating resource classification, -475 m depth
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 146 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-28: Vertical section displaying resource classification
11.7 | Copper Pricing |
11.7.1 | Global Refined Copper Consumption and Production |
World usage of refined Cu has more than tripled in the last 50 years thanks to expanding sectors such as electrical and electronic products, building construction, industrial machinery and equipment, transportation equipment, and consumer, and general products. Because of its properties, Cu has become a major industrial metal, ranking third after Fe, and aluminum in terms of quantities consumed.
As noted in the International Copper Study Group (“ICSG”) 2020 Copper Factbook, since 1900 when world production was less than 500 thousand tonnes Cu world mine production has grown by 3.2% per annum to 20.5 million tonnes in 2019. In fact, more than 97% of all Cu ever mined and smelted has been extracted since 1900.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 147 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Global demand for Cu is expected to grow at 1.3% compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) over the next five years. In the short term, the Cu market balance is expected to turn into a surplus, though in order to reach the future demand, more investments are needed in expansions and new projects.
Although Cu demand scenarios differ among analysts, there is a general agreement that the major driver for increased Cu demand will come from infrastructure investments associated with energy transitions.
The International Energy Agency (“IEA”) recently published a comprehensive report titled “The Role of Critical Materials in Clean Energy Transitions”. The IEA notes that the shift to clean energy naturally involves burning less fuel but building more equipment. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50%, with an onshore wind facility requiring nine times more Mineral Resources than a gas-fired plant of the same capacity. Clean energy rollout requires significant electrical network expansion. The IEA estimates an annual average grid expansion and replacement of approximately 3,600 thousand km by 2040. This translates to 7,613 kt of Cu demand in 2040. The IEA also predicts Cu demand from renewables will increase 108% to 1,289 kt Cu by 2040, 94% of which will come from solar photovoltaic and wind. The report details a tripling of solar photovoltaic deployment by 2040, driven by growth in emerging economies, which equates to the addition of just under 645 kilotonnes per annum (“ktpa”) of Cu demand from this energy type by the end of 2040 (Figure 11-29).
Figure 11-29: Global copper demand 2000-2040
11.7.2 | Copper Prices |
Cu prices, in theory, correlate to the supply and demand of refined Cu. However economic policy, geopolitical events, wars, black swan events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the development of financial derivatives and associated market speculation has contributed to the volatility in prices. While the recent price has reached a historic high in nominal terms, this is not the case in real terms.
Cu price is dynamic. The graph in Figure 11-30 provides some explanation of the variability of the price over the last century, and while history does not necessarily provide the answer to the future Cu price, it can provide prognosticators with various factors which are monitored to fine tune their forecasts of the forward Cu price.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 148 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-30: A century of Cu prices
There will always be differing views of what the future holds in terms of price based on analysis and assumptions. With a number of significant mining operations due to come on-line in the next one to two years, many analysts are forecasting a decline in prices from the current highs (Table 11-14).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 149 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-14: Consensus Copper Pricing 2021-2024
Copper (US$/lb) | November 30, 2021 | |||||
Date | Firm | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Long Term |
19-Nov-21 | CIBC | $4.46 | $4.75 | $3.75 | $3.55 | $3.30 |
19-Nov-21 | Deutsche Bank | $4.22 | $4.28 | $3.74 | $3.77 | $3.63 |
15-Nov-21 | BAML | $4.24 | $4.48 | $4.31 | $4.04 | $3.09 |
15-Nov-21 | BMO | $4.09 | $3.48 | $3.01 | $3.35 | $3.25 |
15-Nov-21 | Canaccord | $4.19 | $4.25 | $4.00 | $4.25 | $3.30 |
15-Nov-21 | Credit Suisse | $4.25 | $3.40 | $3.20 | $3.30 | $3.50 |
15-Nov-21 | Desjardins | $4.32 | $4.73 | $4.10 | $4.10 | $4.10 |
15-Nov-21 | Morgan Stanley | $4.16 | - | - | - | $2.82 |
15-Nov-21 | Raymond James | $4.16 | $3.75 | $3.50 | $3.50 | $3.50 |
15-Nov-21 | Scotia | $4.15 | $4.25 | $4.25 | $4.50 | $3.25 |
14-Nov-21 | National Bank | $4.21 | $4.30 | $3.75 | $3.75 | $3.30 |
13-Nov-21 | Jefferies | $4.13 | $4.50 | $5.50 | $6.00 | $3.25 |
12-Nov-21 | Societe Generale | $4.20 | $3.63 | $4.31 | $4.99 | - |
10-Nov-21 | Eight Capital | $4.37 | $3.75 | $3.50 | $3.50 | $3.50 |
09-Nov-21 | RBC | $4.12 | $3.75 | $3.50 | $3.50 | $3.50 |
08-Nov-21 | Paradigm | $4.21 | $4.00 | $4.00 | $3.50 | $3.50 |
05-Nov-21 | HSBC | $4.16 | $3.95 | $3.60 | $3.50 | $3.00 |
05-Nov-21 | JP Morgan | $4.14 | $3.83 | $3.27 | - | $3.30 |
04-Nov-21 | Haywood | $4.19 | $4.15 | $4.15 | $4.15 | $4.15 |
03-Nov-21 | Stifel | $4.20 | $3.75 | $3.75 | $3.75 | $3.75 |
22-Oct-21 | Cormark | $4.05 | $3.75 | $3.50 | $3.50 | $3.50 |
20-Oct-21 | TD | $4.22 | $4.00 | $3.50 | $3.35 | $3.50 |
08-Oct-21 | Barclays | $4.15 | $3.55 | $2.85 | - | $3.00 |
07-Oct-21 | Berenberg | $4.14 | $3.94 | $3.86 | $3.86 | $3.22 |
06-Oct-21 | BNP Paribas | $4.17 | $4.08 | $4.04 | - | $3.63 |
05-Oct-21 | UBS | $4.12 | $3.50 | $3.30 | $3.30 | $3.00 |
Average | $4.19 | $3.99 | $3.77 | $3.86 | $3.39 |
Source: CIBC Mining Markets
Beyond 2024, the supply demand gap is expected to widen leading to higher Cu prices (Figure 11-31).
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 150 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Figure 11-31: Projected mine supply demand to 2040
11.7.3 | Commodity Price Projections |
Project economics were estimated based on a long term copper price of US$ 3.70/lb.
11.8 | Reasonable Prospects of Eventual Economic Extraction |
The Mineral Resource was created using Datamine Studio RMTM version 1.7.100.0 software to create the block models for the Santa Cruz deposit, and Deswik.CADTM 2022.1 and Deswik.SOTM 4.1 for stope optimization.
To demonstrate reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction for the Santa Cruz Mineral Resource Estimate, representational minimum mining unit shapes were created using Deswik’s minimum mining unit shape optimizer (MSO) tool. This MSO tool constrains and evaluates the block model based on economic and geometric parameters, shown in Table 11-15, generating potentially mineable shapes. The deposit was assumed to be developed as a long-life operation consisting of an underground bulk mining plan, with an initial mining rate of 40,000 tonnes/day to produce a Cu concentrate. The Mineral Resource Estimate comprises of all material found within the MSO wireframes generated at a cut-off of 0.39% Cu, including material below cut-off.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 151 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-15: Input Parameter Assumptions
1 See Section 11.7 for Copper Pricing Assumptions and Justification
11.9 | Mineral Resource Estimate |
Due to a lack of sample data as well as a bias in sampling for acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu within the Primary Domain, it was determined that the acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu estimation within the Primary Domain was not representative of the actual cyanide soluble Cu within the domain and has been removed from all reports and totals. Acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu was determined to be accurate within the Exotic Domain, Oxide Domain, and Chalcocite Enriched Domain.
The Santa Cruz deposit Mineral Resource Estimate is presented in Table 11-16.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 152 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-16: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG
Domain |
Resource Category |
Kilotonnes kt |
Total Cu % |
Total Soluble Cu % |
Acid
Soluble Cu % |
Cyanide Soluble Cu % |
Total Cu kt |
Total Soluble Cu kt |
Acid Soluble Cu kt |
Cyanide Soluble Cu kt |
Exotic | Indicated | 6,989 | 1.05 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 73 | 56 | 51 | 5 |
Inferred | 11,680 | 1.28 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 149 | 118 | 115 | 3 | |
Oxide | Indicated | 52,990 | 1.34 | 1.27 | 0.98 | 0.29 | 708 | 669 | 518 | 151 |
Inferred | 126,138 | 1.06 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.29 | 1,336 | 1,253 | 892 | 361 | |
Chalcocite Enriched | Indicated | 29,145 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 364 | 328 | 115 | 213 |
Inferred | 14,838 | 1.36 | 1.28 | 0.52 | 0.76 | 202 | 191 | 78 | 113 | |
Primary | Indicated | 184,877 | 0.75 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1,394 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Inferred | 96,098 | 0.59 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 568 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
TOTAL | ||||||||||
Indicated | 274,000 | 0.93 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 2,539 | 1,053 | 684 | 369 | |
Inferred | 248,754 | 0.91 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 2,255 | 1,563 | 1,085 | 478 |
Notes on Mineral Resources
1. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared by Nordmin Engineering Ltd and the Mineral Resources were prepared in accordance S-K 1300. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues are known that may affect this estimate of Mineral Resources. |
2. | Verification included multiple site visits to inspect drilling, logging, density measurement procedures and sampling procedures, and a review of the control sample results used to assess laboratory assay quality. In addition, a random selection of the drill hole database results was compared with original records. |
3. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate for the Santa Cruz deposit used Datamine Studio RMTM software to create the block models. |
4. | The sensitivity of the Mineral Resources have an effective date of December 8, 2021. |
5. | Underground Mineral Resources are reported at a CoG of 0.39% Total Cu, which is based upon a Cu price of US$$3.70/lb and a Cu recovery factor of 80%. See Section 11.7 for Cu pricing assumptions and justification. |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 153 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
6. | SG was applied using weighted averages by lithology. |
7. | All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates, and totals may not add correctly |
8. | Excludes unclassified mineralization located along edges of the Santa Cruz deposit where drill density is poor |
9. | Report from within a mineralization envelope accounting for mineral continuity |
10. | Acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu are not reported for the Primary Domain. |
11.10 | Mineral Resource Sensitivity to Reporting Cut-off |
The updated Santa Cruz deposit Mineral Resource Estimate to a Cu (%) cut-off is summarized in Table 11-17 across all interpolation methods.
Table 11-17: Mineral Resource Sensitivity for Total Cu
Resource Category |
Cut-Off Total |
Tonnes |
Total % |
Acid Soluble Cu % |
Cyanide Soluble Cu % |
Total Cu Tonnes | Acid Soluble Cu Tonnes |
Cyanide Soluble Cu Tonnes |
Indicated | 0.15 | 314,273,007 | 0.85 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 2,686,651 | 712,0990 | 383,669 |
Inferred | 0.15 | 533,663,405 | 0.58 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 3,106,552 | 1,215,144 | 533,071 |
Indicated | 0.30 | 283,328,659 | 0.92 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 2,616,190 | 695,802 | 376,862 |
Inferred | 0.30 | 322,817,980 | 0.82 | 0.36 | 0.16 | 2,640,301 | 1,148,266 | 511,241 |
Indicated | 0.35 | 271,312,798 | 0.95 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 2,577,188 | 689,348 | 374,520 |
Inferred | 0.35 | 265,823,077 | 0.92 | 0.42 | 0.19 | 2,455,978 | 1,122,809 | 502,656 |
Indicated | 0.50 | 219,131,684 | 1.07 | 0.30 | 0.17 | 2,353,684 | 668,114 | 364,050 |
Inferred | 0.50 | 174,941,611 | 1.19 | 0.60 | 0.27 | 2,080,315 | 1,050,293 | 472,372 |
Indicated | 0.80 | 117,239,321 | 1.46 | 0.52 | 0.28 | 1,709,776 | 610,282 | 322,538 |
Inferred | 0.80 | 98,139,965 | 1.63 | 0.90 | 0.40 | 1,598,724 | 879,141 | 393,015 |
Indicated | 1.00 | 83,359,021 | 1.69 | 0.68 | 0.33 | 1,407,930 | 568,069 | 272,262 |
Inferred | 1.00 | 74,106,551 | 1.87 | 1.08 | 0.46 | 1,383,711 | 801,363 | 344,161 |
Indicated | 2.00 | 22,872,137 | 2.58 | 1.37 | 0.57 | 590,080 | 312,528 | 130,458 |
Inferred | 2.00 | 28,098,868 | 2.66 | 1.72 | 0.63 | 748,727 | 483,315 | 178,079 |
11.11 | Interpolation Comparison |
Global statistical comparisons between the composite samples, NN estimates, ID2 estimates, ID3 estimates, and OK for various cut-off grades were compared to assess global bias, where the NN model estimates represent de-clustered composite data. Clustering of the drill hole data can result in differences between the global means of the composites and NN estimates.
The OK method was used as the reporting estimation interpolation method, while NN, ID2, and ID3 were also calculated for validation purposes, as described in Section 14.5.
Table 11-18 demonstrates the total Cu interpolation comparison across OK, ID2, ID3, and NN interpolation methods.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 154 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 11-18: Interpolation Comparison
Cut-Off Total Cu % |
Total Cu OK |
Total Cu ID2 |
Total Cu ID3 |
Total Cu NN |
Acid OK |
Acid ID2 |
Acid ID3 |
Acid NN |
Cyanide OK |
Cyanide ID2 |
Cyanide ID3 |
Cyanide NN |
0.15 | 0.85 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.10 |
0.30 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.30 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
0.35 | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
0.50 | 1.17 | 1.16 | 1.16 | 1.18 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.22 |
0.80 | 1.57 | 1.55 | 1.55 | 1.58 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.75 | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.32 |
1.00 | 1.80 | 1.78 | 1.78 | 1.81 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.36 |
2.00 | 2.64 | 2.61 | 2.60 | 2.66 | 1.60 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 1.62 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.55 |
11.12 | Factors That May Affect the Mineral Resources |
Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource Estimates include:
· | changes to long term metal price assumptions; |
· | changes to the input values for mining, processing, and G&A costs to constrain the estimate; |
· | changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized sub-domains; |
· | changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones; |
· | changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions; |
· | changes in assumptions of marketability of the final product; |
· | variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological and mining assumptions; |
· | changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements; |
· | changes to environmental, permitting, and social license assumptions; and |
· | Logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labour, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics and other public health crises, including COVID-19, or similar such viruses. |
11.13 | Nordmin’s QP Opinion |
Nordmin is not aware of any environmental, legal, title, taxation, socio to economic, marketing, political or other relevant factors that would materially affect the estimation of Mineral Resources that are not discussed in this Technical Report.
Nordmin is of the opinion that the Mineral Resources were estimated using industry accepted practices and conforms to the 2014 CIM Definition Standards and 2019 CIM Best Practice Guidelines. Technical and economic parameters and assumptions applied to the Mineral Resource Estimate are based on parameters received from IVNE and reviewed within the Nordmin technical team to determine if they were appropriate.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 155 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
12 | MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
13 | MINING METHODS |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
14 | PROCESSING AND RECOVERY METHODS |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
15 | INFRASTRUCTURE |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
16 | MARKET STUDIES |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
17 | ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND PLANS, NEGOTIATIONS, OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
18 | CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
19 | ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 156 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
20 | ADJACENT PROPERTIES |
20.1 | Cactus Project |
The Cactus Project in Pinal County, Arizona, is the primary asset of the Arizona Sonoran Copper Company (ASCU), a pre-production Cu-focused company. The Project includes the past-producing Sacaton open pit mine and stockpile, the Cactus East deposit, and parts of the Parks-Salyer deposit. The 4,300-acre Cactus Project is located on 100% private land, approximately five kilometres (km) northwest of Casa Grande, 9.4 km northeast of IVNE’s Santa Cruz Project, and 65 km south of the city of Phoenix.
The Sacaton mineral deposit was discovered by ASARCO geologists in the early 1960s and brought into production in 1972. Open pit mining operated continuously until permanent closure in 1984 and primarily exploited higher-grade enriched sulphide material processed through a typical concentrator processing flowsheet. By the end of its mine life, Sacaton produced an estimated 180,557 tonnes of Cu, 27,455 oz of Au, and 759,000 oz of Ag from a milled resource of 34,610,912 tonnes with head grades of 0.69% Cu, 0.025 g/t Au, and 1.87 g/t Ag. After the ASARCO bankruptcy in 2005, the asset was placed into a Custodial Trust in 2009, tasked with clean up associated with the mining activity. In 2018 Cactus110 LLC, a subsidiary to ASCU, executed both the purchase and the prospective purchase agreements with the trust. The acquisition closed in July 2020 and included the Sacaton land parcels, mineral titles, and remaining infrastructure with no environmental legacy issues.
ASCU, since the acquisition of the Sacaton project, has completed their initial public offering on the Toronto Stock Exchange and published NI 43-101 compliant resources on the oxide, enriched, and primary sulphide mineralization remaining in the historic stockpile, the historic open pit, and the Cactus East deposit (
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 157 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 20-1). Following the updated Resource Estimate, ASCU completed a PEA exploiting the oxide material present in the stockpile resource, the oxide, and enriched material in the Open Pit and Underground resources, excluding primary sulphide material (Table 20-2). The Cactus Project PEA shows a favourable mining operation utilizing conventional Cu heap leach, modular design solvent extraction and electrowinning processing to produce an average of 25,597 tonnes per annum of London Metal Exchange Grade A quality cathode (Table 20-3). ASCU publicly states they are targeting completion of a prefeasibility study in the second half of 2022 and completion of feasibility by the end of 2022, which will lead them into project financing discussions early in 2023.
The QP has been unable to verify the geology and mineralization on the adjacent Cactus Project, and mineralization at the Cactus Project is not indicative of the mineralization within the Santa Cruz Project.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 158 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 20-1: Global Mineral Resource Estimate of the Cactus Project. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021
Table 20-2: Resource Estimate Utilized for the PEA. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021
Mining Source | Material Type | Leach Material (t) | Tsol (%) | Leachable Cu (t) |
Stockpile Project | Oxide | 74,689,427 | 0.141 | 105,487 |
Open Pit | Oxide | 42,465,318 | 0.190 | 80,684 |
Enriched | 20,984,090 | 0.420 | 88,133 | |
Underground | Oxide | 5,730,686 | 1.180 | 67,378 |
Enriched | 19,239,574 | 1.126 | 249,110 | |
Total | Oxide | 122,885,431 | 0.203 | 249,208 |
Enriched | 40,223,664 | 0.822 | 330,552 | |
Total | 163,109,095 | 0.355 | 579,760 |
Table 20-3: Financial Results of the Cactus Project PEA. Source – Arizona Sonoran Copper Company, Inc. Cactus Project, Arizona, USA, PEA, Effective August 31, 2021
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 159 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
21 | OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION |
This section is not relevant to this Technical Report.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 160 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
22 | INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS |
22.1 | Introduction |
Nordmin notes the following interpretations and conclusions in their respective areas of expertise, based on the review of data available for this Technical Report.
22.2 | Mineral Tenure, Surface Rights, Royalties, and Agreements |
The Santa Cruz Project is located 11 km west of the town of Casa Grande, Arizona, and is approximately one hour’s drive south of the capital Phoenix. The centroid is approximately -111.88212, 32.89319 (WGS84) in Township 6 S, Range 4E, Section 13, Quarter C.
The Santa Cruz exploration area covers 77.59 km2 including 27.75 km2 of private land, 30.52 km2 of Arizona State Mineral Exploration permits, and 238 unpatented claims, or 19.32 km2 of BLM land.
Current exploration is conducted on private land under the SUA with Legend. Disturbance to date has been de minimis and permitting has consisted of filing Notices of Intent to Drill and to Abandon with the Arizona Department of Water Resources for each section of land on which drilling takes place. IVNE will obtain additional permits as required. Specific permits to construct and operate mine facilities would be determined as the design of the Project advances.
Existing and past land uses in the Project area and immediately surrounding areas include agriculture, residential home development, light industrial facilities, and mineral exploration, and development. Some dispersed recreation occurs in the area. The climate is dry and most of the Project area is flat, sandy, and sparsely vegetated. Portions of the Project area are in the 100-year flood plain of the North Branch of Santa Cruz Wash. Within the Project area, approximately 85 acres of land located approximately ¾ mile north of the intersection of N. Spike Road and W. Clayton Road was used during an in situ leaching project in 1991. A Phase 1 ESA was conducted on the Project area (Civil & Environmental Consultants 2021).
There is a large private land package covering the Project area and area of known mineralization. This private land position could result in reduced permitting time relative to projects that are required to undergo the NEPA process. The precise list of permits required to authorize construction and operation of this Project will be determined as the mining and processing methods are designed. If NEPA and other federal permitting is avoided, required permits would be administered by Arizona State, Pinal County, and Casa Grande authorities.
The permit approval process for some permits includes review and approval of the process design. Thus, the project design must be substantially advanced to support application for those permits. These technical permits typically represent the “longest lead” permits. Technical permits with substantial technical design needed as part of their applications, and the issuing agencies are anticipated to include:
- | Reclamation Plan approval (Arizona State Mine Inspector) |
- | Water permits |
- | Aquifer Protection Permit (ADEQ) |
- | Air Quality Operating Permit (Pinal County) |
At the effective date of this Technical Report, IVNE held access agreements for diamond drilling. Further permitting will be acquired as necessary.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 161 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
22.3 | Geology and Mineral Resource Modelling |
The Santa Cruz deposit is a portion of a large porphyry Cu system that has been dismembered and displaced by extensional faulting and exhibits typical characteristics of a porphyry Cu deposit.
The geology is dominated by the anorogenic Oracle Granite, diabase sills, and rare dykes. Laramide porphyritic intrusives, and breccias are intruded into the Oracle Granite and diabase sills. These intrusive complexes are associated with discrete high grade hypogene mineralization. The entire Santa Cruz deposit is underlain by the Pinal Schist, which marks the end of mineralization at depth within the Santa Cruz deposit area. There are two key types of Cu mineralization found within the Santa Cruz Project. Supergene mineralization, which represents the highest grades within the Santa Cruz deposit and is dominated by Cu-oxide minerals, and hypogene mineralization which contains primary Cu sulphide minerals. Modelling of the Santa Cruz deposit was split into four main Cu domains which represent different subcategories of Cu mineralization: the Exotic Domain, Oxide Domain, Chalcocite Enriched Domain, and Primary Domain.
The Mineral Resource Estimate was created from the main drill hole database containing 104,184 m of diamond drilling in 121 drill holes spanning from 1964 to 2021. Nordmin, through an interactive process with IVNE, examined the historic interpretations of the mineralization to produce the Cu domains. To ensure the accuracy of the interpreted location of mineralized domains IVNE completed five twin diamond drill holes (4,738 m) of historic drill holes in 2021. Nordmin reviewed the assays, lithology, and mineralization to confirm the historic drilling and add to the interpreted mineralization. Once a geologic interpretation was established, wireframes could be created. Detailed wireframing of the domains was completed in section and plan view to give better perspective of the depth and limits of the Cu mineralization. Attention was given to consistent smoothing of the wireframes and ensuring that wireframes followed interpreted geological, and structural trends. Wireframes were constrained by D2 fault structures to the north and south, and mineralization of the Oxide Domain was terminated at the acid soluble Cu boundary; a theoretical layer used to ensure no overlap of primary Cu and oxide Cu wireframes. A block model has been fully validated with no material bias identified. Lithological, structural, and mineralization trends were used in the interpretation and selection of the block modelling parameters. Nordmin feels that the interpreted geological and mineralization domains produced accurately represents the deposit style of the Santa Cruz deposit.
22.4 | Exploration, Drilling, and Analytical Data Collection in Support of Mineral Resource Estimation |
The exploration programs completed by IVNE, and previous operators are appropriate for the deposit style. The programs delineated the Santa Cruz and Texaco deposits, as well as other mines and deposits along the Santa Cruz-Sacaton Cu trend. Diamond drilling indicates the potential to further define, and potentially expand, on known exploration targets.
The quantity and the quality of lithological, collar, and downhole survey data collected in the various exploration programs by various operators are sufficient to support the Mineral Resource Estimate. The collected sampling is representative of total Cu, acid soluble Cu, cyanide soluble Cu, and molybdenum data in the Santa Cruz deposit, reflecting areas of higher, and lower grades. This has been confirmed by 2021 diamond drill hole twinning of historic, high-grade drill holes. It is seen that assays in 2021 drill holes align with historic assays even though samples were taken with higher resolution in 2021, confirming mineralization interpretations. The analytical laboratories used for legacy and current assaying are well known in the industry, produce reliable data, are properly accredited, and are widely used within the industry. Nordmin considers the QA/QC protocols in place for the Project to be acceptable and in line with standard industry practice. Based on the data validation and the results of the standard, blank, and duplicate analyses, Nordmin is of the opinion that the assay and SG databases are of sufficient quality for Mineral Resource Estimation for the Project.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 162 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Nordmin is not aware of any drilling, sampling, or recovery factors that could materially impact the accuracy and reliability of the results. In Nordmin’s opinion the drilling, core handling, logging, and sampling procedures meet or exceed industry standards, and are adequate for the purpose of Mineral Resource Estimation.
22.5 | Processing and Metallurgical Testing |
Mineralized material from the Santa Cruz deposit was evaluated by the CGCC Hanna-Getty JV and by the SCJV in conjunction with the Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines (subsequently Bureau of Reclamation). Currently, IVNE is in the process of developing its own mineral processing and metallurgical test program for the evaluation of the Santa Cruz deposit
The Hanna Mining Company, a large miner of iron ore and coking coal, began feasibility studies on the Santa Cruz deposit in 1976. Their studies continued until 1982 and consisted of flotation, grinding, and leaching studies. Tests consisted of all agitated tank leach approach (91% total Cu recovery to cathodes), all-float approach (92% total Cu recovery to cathodes or a mixture of cathodes and saleable Cu concentrates), and a leach float process (94% Cu recovery to cathodes or to a mixture of cathodes and saleable Cu concentrates. Hanna Mining selected the latter of these methods to move forward with. Composite samples were generated for HG supergene, supergene dilution, LG supergene, mixed chalcocite/chalcopyrite, primary chalcopyrite, exotic ore, and exotic dilution ore types. In 1980, ASARCO contracted Mountain States Engineering to evaluate fragmented acid soluble Cu ore versus block caving. Flotation test programs were applied to all the composite samples. The test programs would be acceptable for a PEA level program today, but not for a PFS or FS level study because of the lack of any significant variability flotation testing of the Santa Cruz deposit.
BLM, ASARCO, and Freeport McMoRan conducted an in situ sulphuric acid leach study with 2-inch diameter by 2.5-inch-long pieces of diamond drill core from the proposed in situ leach zone in the pilot program. Reported Cu recoveries ranged from 57% to 90%. Total Cu ranged from 2.3% to 9%. The conclusion from this program that was completed in 1996-1997, demonstrated that in situ leaching was not economically practical using the Cu price in 1996 for this type of mineralization. With the increased geological and geochemical understanding of the mineralization, further in situ leaching studies are warranted.
There are no processing factors or deleterious elements that could significantly affect economic extraction. Historically proposed processes for the extraction of Cu ore are all conventional in design and have been used economically for many decades. Advances in most technology since the 1980s when these studies were conducted has improved the economics of the proposed methods and could warrant re-visiting them as viable methodology for processing by IVNE in the future.
22.6 | Mineral Resource Estimate |
The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Project conforms to industry best practices and is reported using the S-K 1300. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. This estimate of Mineral Resources may be materially affected by environmental permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 163 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Mineral Resources were classified into Indicated and Inferred categories based on geological and grade continuity, in conjunction with data quality, spatial continuity based on variography, estimation pass, data density, and block model representativeness, specifically assay spacing and abundance, kriging variance, and search volume block estimation assignment.
The Mineral Resource Estimate has been defined based on an applied total Cu (%) CoG to reflect processing methodology and assumed revenue stream from Cu.
Resource Estimate is based on an underground mining methodology and surface leach float process to recover cathode Cu or a mixture of cathode Cu and Cu saleable concentrates.
The Santa Cruz deposit Mineral Resource Estimate is presented in Table 22-1.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 164 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Table 22-1: Santa Cruz Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, 0.39% Total Cu CoG
Domain | Resource Category |
Kilotonnes kt |
Total Cu % |
Total Soluble Cu % |
Acid Soluble Cu % |
Cyanide Soluble Cu % |
Total Cu kt |
Total Soluble Cu kt |
Acid Soluble Cu kt |
Cyanide Soluble Cu kt |
Exotic | Indicated | 6,989 | 1.05 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 73 | 56 | 51 | 5 |
Inferred | 11,680 | 1.28 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 149 | 118 | 115 | 3 | |
Oxide | Indicated | 52,990 | 1.34 | 1.27 | 0.98 | 0.29 | 708 | 669 | 518 | 151 |
Inferred | 126,138 | 1.06 | 1.00 | 0.71 | 0.29 | 1,336 | 1,253 | 892 | 361 | |
Chalcocite Enriched | Indicated | 29,145 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 0.40 | 0.73 | 364 | 328 | 115 | 213 |
Inferred | 14,838 | 1.36 | 1.28 | 0.52 | 0.76 | 202 | 191 | 78 | 113 | |
Primary | Indicated | 184,877 | 0.75 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1,394 | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Inferred | 96,098 | 0.59 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 568 | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
TOTAL | ||||||||||
Indicated | 274,000 | 0.93 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.13 | 2,539 | 1,053 | 684 | 369 | |
Inferred | 248,754 | 0.91 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 2,255 | 1,563 | 1,085 | 478 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 165 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Notes on Mineral Resources
1. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate were independently prepared by Nordmin Engineering Ltd and the Mineral Resources were prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, sociopolitical, marketing, or other relevant issues are known that may affect this estimate of Mineral Resources. |
2. | Verification included multiple site visits to inspect drilling, logging, density measurement procedures and sampling procedures, and a review of the control sample results used to assess laboratory assay quality. In addition, a random selection of the drill hole database results was compared with original records. |
3. | The Mineral Resources in this estimate for the Santa Cruz deposit used Datamine Studio RMTM software to create the block models. |
4. | The Mineral Resources have an effective date of December 8, 2021. |
5. | Underground Mineral Resources are reported at a CoG of 0.39% Total Cu, that is based upon a Cu price of US$$3.70/lb and a Cu recovery factor of 80% |
6. | SG was applied using weighted averages by lithology. |
7. | All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates and totals may not add correctly |
8. | Excludes unclassified mineralization located along edges of the Santa Cruz deposit where drill density is poor |
9. | Report from within a mineralization envelope accounting for mineral continuity |
10. | Acid soluble Cu and cyanide soluble Cu are not reported for the Primary Domain. |
There is a potential to increase the Mineral Resource by using infill drilling to expand and increase the Mineral Resource category.
Areas of uncertainty that may materially impact the Mineral Resource Estimate include:
· | Changes to long term metal price assumptions. |
· | Changes to the input values for mining, processing, and G&A costs to constrain the estimate. |
· | Changes to local interpretations of mineralization geometry and continuity of mineralized zones. |
· | Changes to the density values applied to the mineralized zones. |
· | Changes to metallurgical recovery assumptions. |
· | Changes in assumption of marketability of the final product. |
· | Variations in geotechnical, hydrogeological, and mining assumptions. |
· | Changes to assumptions with an existing agreement or new agreements. |
· | Changes to environmental, permitting, and social licence assumptions. |
· | Logistics of securing and moving adequate services, labour, and supplies could be affected by epidemics, pandemics and other public health crises, including COVID-19, or similar such viruses. |
These risks and uncertainties may cause delays in economic resource extraction and/or cause the resource to become economically non-viable.
22.7 | Conclusions |
Under the assumptions presented in this Technical Report, and based on the available data, the Mineral Resource shows reasonable prospects of economic extraction. Exploration activities have shown that the Santa Cruz deposit retains significant potential. Additional infill drilling in the categories of Inferred and Indicated Resource is warranted.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 166 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 22032-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
23 | RECOMMENDATIONS |
The recommended program is focused on drilling, analytical, metallurgical test work, geological modelling, resource estimation, and environmental baseline studies to support permitting efforts. The recommendations are estimated to require a 2022 budget of $73.7 million.
In 2022, IVNE is planning is as follows:
· | Complete an Initial Assessement |
· | Infill drill according to guidance from Resource Model and Economic Parameters |
· | Complete modern metallurgical testing on select holes |
· | Create a baseline groundwater model based on data obtained from piezometers installed in SCC-001, SCC-004, and SCC-005 |
· | Do baseline environmental work to support future permitting efforts |
· | Exploration drilling at key targets |
The budget for 2022 is presented in Table 23-1.
Table 23-1: 2022 Budget
Item | Budget (US$Millions) |
Drilling and Assays | $17.0 |
Land and Commercial | $50.0 |
Geophysics | $1.2 |
Initial Assessment | $1.5 |
Operational Support – staff, facilities, vehicles, transport, new core shed, community office, community relations | $4.0 |
Total | $73.7 |
Advancing to subsequent phases of exploration is contingent on positive results in the Initial Assessment.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 167 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
24 | REFERENCES |
Anderson, T. H., (2015). Jurassic (170–150 Ma) basins: The tracks of a continental-scale fault, the Mexico-Alaska megashear, from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska.
Asmus, B., (2013). Gossan or the iron cap. Retrieved from https://en.archaeometallurgie.de/gossan-iron-cap/
Balla, J. C., (1972). The relationship of Laramide stocks to regional structure in central Arizona.
Banks, N. G., Cornwall, H. R., Silberman, M. L., Creasey, S. C., & Marvin, R. F.,(1972). Chronology of Intrusion and Ore Deposition at Ray, Arizona; Part I, K-Ar Ages. Economic Geology, 67(7), 864-878.
Berger, B., Ayuso, R., Wynn, J., & Seal, R., (2008). Preliminary Model of Porphyry Copper Deposits. USGS Open-File Report 2008-1321. Retrieved from http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr20081321
Chávez, W. X., (2021). Weathering of Copper Deposits and Copper Mobility: Mineralogy, Geochemical Stratigraphy, and Exploration Implications. SEG Discovery, (126), 16-27.
Dilles, John H., et al., (2000). Overview of the Yerington porphyry copper district: Magmatic to nonmagmatic sources of hydrothermal fluids, their flow paths, alteration affects on rocks, and Cu-Mo-Fe-Au ores.
Cook III, S. S. (1994)., The geologic history of supergene enrichment in the porphyry copper deposits of southwestern North America (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona).
Cummings, R. B., & Titley, S. R., (1982). Geology of the Sacaton porphyry copper deposit. Advances in Geology of the Porphyry Copper Deposits, Southwest North America, 507-521.
Fernández-Mort, A., & Riquelme, R. A.-Z., (2018). genetic model based on evapoconcentration for sediment-hosted exotic-copper mineralization in arid environments: the case of the El Tesoro Central copper deposit, Atacama Desert, Chile. Miner Deposita, 53, 775-795. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00126-017-0780-2
Harlan, S. S., (1993). Paleomagnetism of Middle Proterozoic diabase sheets from central Arizona. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 30(7), 1415-1426.
Kreis, (1978). A Structural and Related Mineral Reinterpretation of the Santa Cruz Horst Block. Internal report.
Leveille, R. A., & Stegen, R. J., (2012). The southwestern North America porphyry copper province.
Lipske, J. L., & Dilles, J. H., (2000). Advanced argillic and sericitic alteration in the subvolcanic environment of the Yerington porphyry copper system, Buckskin Range, Nevada.
Lowell, J., & Guilbert, J., (1970). Lateral and vertical alteration-mineralization zoning in porphyry ore deposits. Economic Geology, 65, 373-408.
Mote, T., Becker, T., Renne, P., & Brimhall, G., (2001). Chronology of Exotic Mineralization at El Salvador, Chile, by 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Copper Wad and Supergene Alunite. Economic Geology, 351-366. doi:10.2113/96.2.351
Münchmeyer, C., (1998). Exotic Deposits - Products of Lateral Migration of Supergene Solutions from Porphyry Copper Deposits. Andean Copper Deposits: New Discoveries, Mineralization, Styles and Metallogeny. Francisco Camus, Richard M. Sillitoe, Richard Petersen.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 168 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Tosdal, R. M., & Wooden, J. L., (2015). Construction of the Jurassic magmatic arc, southeast California and southwest Arizona. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 513, 189-221.
Scarborough, R., & Meader, N., (1989). Geologic Map of the Northern Plomosa Mountains, Yuma [La Paz] County, Arizona.
Sell, J.D., (1976). A Structural and Related Mineral Reinterpretation of the Santa Cruz Horst Block - Santa Cruz Project Studies, Pinal County, Arizona, internal report from Sell to F.T. Greybeal.
Sillitoe, R. H., (2010). Porphyry Copper Systems. Economic Geology. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.105.1.3
Vikre, P., Graybeal, F., & Koutz, F., (2014). Concealed Basalt-Matrix Diatremes with Cu-Au-Ag-(Mo)-Mineralized Xenoliths, Santa Cruz Porphyry Cu-(Mo) System, Pinal County, Arizona. Economic Geology. doi:10.2113/econgeo.109.5.1271
Watts, A. B., Karner, G., & Steckler, M. S., (1982). Lithospheric flexure and the evolution of sedimentary basins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 305(1489), 249-281.
Watts Griffis McQuat, Evoy, E.F., (1982). Casa Grande Copper Company Ore Reserve Study for the Hanna Mining Company.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 169 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
25 | RELIANCE ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE REGISTRANT |
This Technical Report Summary has been prepared by Nordmin for IVNE. The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on:
· | Information available to Nordmin at the time of preparation of this report, |
· | Assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report, and |
· | Data, reports, and other information supplied by IVNE. |
For the purpose of the Summary and Section 3 of this report, Nordmin has relied on ownership information provided in an internal Title Opinion and Reliance letter by Marian Lalonde dated October 29, 2021, of Fennemore Law, Tucson, Arizona.
Nordmin has not researched property title or mineral rights for the Santa Cruz Project as we consider it reasonable to rely on IVNEs legal counsel who is responsible for maintaining this information.
Nordmin has taken all appropriate steps, in their professional opinion, to ensure that the above information from IVNE is sound.
Except for the purposes legislated under US federal securities laws and the Canadian provincial securities laws, any use of this Technical Report Summary by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 170 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
26 | DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE |
This report titled “Technical Report Summary on the Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA” with an effective date of June 7, 2022 was prepared and signed by:
Nordmin Engineering Ltd. | (Signed) Nordmin Engineering Ltd. | |
Dated at Thunder Bay, ON | ||
June 7, 2022 |
Technical Report Summary – June 7, 2022 | 171 | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. |
Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA | Project # 21115-01 | |
Ivanhoe Electric Inc. |
Appendix A: Property and Rights
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. Appendix A |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 1 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 2 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 3 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 4 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 5 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 6 of 7 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix A | Page 7 of 7 |
Appendix B: Standard, Blank and duplicate Charts
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. Appendix B |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 1 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 2 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 3 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 4 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 5 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 6 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 7 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 8 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 9 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 10 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 11 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 12 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 13 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 14 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 15 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 16 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 17 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 18 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 19 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 20 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 21 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 22 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 23 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 24 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 25 of 26 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix B | Page 26 of 26 |
Appendix C: Data Analysis Grade Domains
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. Appendix C |
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 7 4 6 ) WF-AS_BIN-2 = 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-AS_BIN-2 = 1 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 CU_PCT 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 1 0 8 3 ) C U _ P C T WF-AS_BIN-2 = 1 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Copper Oxide 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 1 of 20 |
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 9 2 2 ) WF-AS_BIN-2 = 2 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-AS_BIN-2 = 2 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 CU_PCT 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 8 2 3 ) C U _ P C T WF-AS_BIN-2 = 2 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Copper Oxide 1.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 2 of 20 |
0.01 0.1 1 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 7 5 6 ) WF-AS_BIN-2 = 3 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.01 0.1 1 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-AS_BIN-2 = 3 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 8 0 2 ) C U _ P C T WF-AS_BIN-2 = 3 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Copper Oxide 2.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 3 of 20 |
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 5 8 4 9 ) WF-PR_BIN = 1 CU_PCT Histogram mgm25 50 75 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 1 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 CU_PCT 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 2 2 4 1 ) C U _ P C T WF-PR_BIN = 1 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Primary Cu 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 4 of 20 |
0 1 2 3 4 5 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 5 2 7 ) WF-PR_BIN = 2 CU_PCT Histogram mgm25 50 75 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 2 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0 1 2 3 4 5 CU_PCT 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 1 0 3 9 ) C U _ P C T WF-PR_BIN = 2 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Primary Cu 1.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 5 of 20 |
2 4 6 8 10 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 5 4 3 . 9 ) WF-PR_BIN = 3 CU_PCT Histogram mgm2550 75 0.5 1 2 5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 3 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0 2 4 6 8 10 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 50 100 150 200 250 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 2 4 4 ) C U _ P C T WF-PR_BIN = 3 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Primary Cu 1.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 6 of 20 |
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 0 0 6 ) WF-CN BIN IN 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-CN BIN IN 1 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 5075 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 4 4 0 ) C U _ P C T WF-CN BIN IN 1 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Chalcocite Enrichment 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 7 of 20 |
0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 0 3 9 ) WF-CN BIN IN 2 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-CN BIN IN 2 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0 2 4 6 8 10 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 4 3 7 ) C U _ P C T WF-CN BIN IN 2 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Chalcocite Enrichment – 1.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 8 of 20 |
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 1 1 . 8 ) WF-EX BIN IN 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-EX BIN IN 1 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 CU_PCT 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 9 4 ) C U _ P C T WF-EX BIN IN 1 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Exotic Copper – 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 9 of 20 |
2 5 10 CU_PCT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 9 3 . 5 7 ) WF-EX BIN IN 3 Log CU_PCT Histogram 2 5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-EX BIN IN 3 Log Probability Plot CU_PCT mgm25 50 75 2 4 6 8 10 12 CU_PCT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d M e a n A b o v e C U _ P C T C o u n t A b o v e ( o f 3 5 ) C U _ P C T WF-EX BIN IN 3 CU_PCT Mean Above CU_PCT Count Above CU_PCT Exotic Copper – 2.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 10 of 20 |
Capping Charts
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 11 of 20 |
0.8 0.9 1 2 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-AS_BIN-2 = 1 Cap=2.23 Capped=0 CV=0.88 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 0.85 90% 0.87 91% 0.89 92% 0.91 93% 0.94 94% 0.96 95% 0.983 96% 1.1 97% 1.24 98% 2.23 100% Max 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 7 4 6 ) WF-AS_BIN-2 = 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram Copper Oxide 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 12 of 20 |
5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-AS_BIN-2 = 3 Cap=10.1 Capped=0 CV=0.62 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 3.9 90% 4.095 91% 4.202 92% 4.3 93% 4.46 94% 4.64 95% 4.995 96% 5.536 97% 6.247 98% 10.1 100% Max 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 7 5 6 ) WF-AS_BIN-2 = 3 Log CU_PCT Histogram Copper Oxide 2.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 13 of 20 |
0.8 0.9 1 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 1 Cap=1.5 Capped=1 CV=0.4 Total Lost=0.04% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 0.84 90% 0.85 91% 0.87 92% 0.88 93% 0.9 94% 0.92 95% 0.94 96% 0.97 97% 0.99 98% 1.5 99.9% Max 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 5 8 4 9 ) WF-PR_BIN = 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram Primary Cu 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 14 of 20 |
2 3 4 5 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 2 Cap=3 Capped=5 CV=0.46 Total Lost=0.5% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 1.429 90% 1.46 91% 1.47 92% 1.5 93% 1.569 94% 1.652 95% 1.736 96% 1.888 97% 1.985 98% 3 99.7% Max 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 CU_PCT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 5 2 7 ) WF-PR_BIN = 2 Log CU_PCT Histogram Primary Cu 1.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 15 of 20 |
5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-PR_BIN = 3 Cap=11.648 Capped=0 CV=0.6 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 3.267 90% 3.343 91% 3.416 92% 3.491 93% 3.751 94% 4.031 95% 4.227 96% 4.818 97% 5.781 98% 11.65 100% Max 0.5 1 2 5 10 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 5 4 3 . 9 ) WF-PR_BIN = 3 Log CU_PCT Histogram Primary Cu 1.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 16 of 20 |
2 5 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-CN BIN IN 1 Cap=6.93 Capped=0 CV=0.74 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 1.76 90% 1.839 91% 1.89 92% 2 93% 2.046 94% 2.13 95% 2.394 96% 2.45 97% 2.816 98% 6.93 100% Max 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 0 0 6 ) WF-CN BIN IN 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram Chalcocite Enrichment 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 17 of 20 |
5 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-CN BIN IN 2 Cap=11.648 Capped=0 CV=0.73 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 2.847 90% 3.012 91% 3.153 92% 3.24 93% 3.38 94% 3.464 95% 3.79 96% 4.097 97% 4.819 98% 11.65 100% Max 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 1 0 3 9 ) WF-CN BIN IN 2 Log CU_PCT Histogram Chalcocite Enrichment 1.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 18 of 20 |
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 CU_PCT 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.95 99.98 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-EX BIN IN 1 Cap=2.04 Capped=1 CV=0.72 Total Lost=0.3% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 1.561 90% 1.61 91% 1.619 92% 1.634 93% 1.676 94% 1.693 95% 1.771 96% 1.847 97% 1.951 98% 2.04 99% Max 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 CU_PCT 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 2 1 1 . 8 ) WF-EX BIN IN 1 Log CU_PCT Histogram Exotic Copper – 0.5%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 19 of 20 |
6 7 8 9 10 CU_PCT 0.01 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.99 C u m u l a ti v e % WF-EX BIN IN 3 Cap=12.6 Capped=0 CV=0.49 Total Lost=0% Log Probability Plot CU_PCT 6.697 90% 7.126 91% 7.68 92% 8.234 93% 8.572 94% 8.71 95% 8.848 96% 9.241 97% 10.36 98% 12.6 100% Max 0.01 0.050.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 CU_PCT 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 L E N G T H W e i g h t e d F r e q u e n c y ( % o f 9 3 . 5 7 ) WF-EX BIN IN 3 Log CU_PCT Histogram Exotic Copper – 2.0%
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix C | Page 20 of 20 |
Appendix D: Block Model CLASSIFICATION IMAGES
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. Appendix D |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 1 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 2 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 3 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 4 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 5 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 6 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 7 of 8 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix D | Page 8 of 8 |
Appendix E: Block Model VALIDATION IMAGES
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Nordmin Engineering Ltd. Appendix E |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 1 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 2 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 3 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 4 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 5 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 6 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 7 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 8 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 9 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 10 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 11 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 12 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 13 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 14 of 15 |
Technical Report Summary Santa Cruz Project, Arizona, USA Ivanhoe Electric Inc. | Appendix E | Page 15 of 15 |